Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Whether Delisting from No‑Fly List Moots Lawsuit

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday wrestled with whether removing a U.S. citizen from the federal no‑fly list renders his lawsuit moot, or whether secrecy about why he was listed prevents the government from meeting the heavy burden for voluntaril y ceased conduct.

Government counsel Mister Joshi told the justices that Jonas Fikre has not been on the list for eight years and that a public declaration tied to the delisting makes it “absolutely clear” he will not be returned based on currently available information. “There simply isn't a live case or controversy any longer,” Joshi said, arguing that voluntary cessation doctrine should bar continued review of a claim when the challenged conduct has ceased in a way that is unlikely to recur.

Opposing counsel, Mister Rubitz, told the justices that the declaration is too limited because it allows relisting based on new facts, offers no guarantee of notice or a hearing if relisting occurs, and — critically — provides no explanation of the reasons that led to Fikre’s original placement on the list. “He doesn't know why he was listed. He doesn't know what might cause him to be relisted,” Rubitz said, urging the court that without some disclosure a court cannot assess the risk of recurrence.

Several justices pressed both sides on how courts should weigh the factual showing that relisting is unlikely. Justice Kagan asked whether the government could provide frequency data about relisting and whether courts could consider classified materials in camera (in private) or give access to cleared counsel. Joshi said he did not have reliable frequency data and cautioned against turning every mootness inquiry into an in‑camera review of highly sensitive intelligence information.

Justice Gorsuch highlighted the tension between national‑security secrecy and due process, saying an American citizen “normally has a right to what’s been called every man’s evidence against him,” and asked whether at least a judge or cleared counsel could review classified facts in a SCIF. Joshi acknowledged that courts have sometimes used in‑camera, ex parte procedures in related merits litigation but said the mootness inquiry is a predictive judgment about recurrence and that courts are often ill‑suited to second‑guess intelligence assessments.

The court also debated legal standards. Counsel for the government urged reliance on precedent holding that a plaintiff does not have to show a likelihood of future illegal conduct merely because of past placement, citing cases such as Lyons. Respondent’s counsel distinguished between procedural and substantive claims and said the government could moot procedural claims by describing changed procedures, but that without disclosure the risk of repetition for both kinds of claims cannot be assessed.

On remedies, Rubitz said his client seeks both injunctive relief (to bar future reliance on the same allegedly unlawful reasons and to require procedural safeguards) and a declaratory judgment spelling out the rights and authorities at issue. The government countered that with no current redressable injury — Fikre is off the list and guaranteed not to be relisted based on presently available information — no effective injunctive or declaratory relief is possible.

Several justices pressed for a pragmatic way forward. Some suggested limited in‑camera review of classified evidence to resolve the mootness question without public disclosure; others warned that adopting such a rule broadly could force the government to disclose sensitive material in many cases. Respondent's counsel said protective‑order mechanisms and prior in‑camera practices in related litigation show there are ways to give courts the necessary factual record while protecting classified sources.

After extended questioning on the interplay of standing, mootness and the voluntary‑cessation doctrine, the justices thanked counsel and submitted the case for decision.

What happens next: The court will issue a written opinion resolving whether Fikre’s claims survive delisting and what proof the government must present to show relisting is unlikely. If the court finds the case not moot, it may remand for further proceedings or specify procedures for in‑camera review; if it finds mootness, the underlying constitutional and procedural claims will remain unadjudicated until, if ever, the government relists the respondent.