Filed Date: May 30, 2013
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
The plaintiff in this federal lawsuit was a naturalized U.S. Citizen. He was denied boarding to a flight from the United Arab Emirates ("UAE") to the United States because of his alleged inclusion on the No Fly List. He filed the lawsuit on May 30, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, against the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the Terrorist Screening Center ("TSC"), which created and maintained the No Fly List. Represented by the Council on American Islamic Relations as well as private counsel, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants placed him on the No Fly List to coerce him into becoming an informant for the FBI. The plaintiff further alleged that during an interview in Sudan he was denied counsel by defendants and urged to become an FBI informant in order to have his name removed from the No Fly List. Because the plaintiff refused to become an informant, he further alleged that the defendants retaliated by instigating and facilitating his torture in the UAE.
Based upon the foregoing allegations, the plaintiff alleged six claims for relief: (1) violation of the right to citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) an unidentified cause of action pertaining to torture; (3) denial of his right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment; (4) violation of his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment; (5) violation of his Fifth Amendment substantive due process right to return to his homeland once abroad; and (6) denial of procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment because the defendants failed to inform him on the basis for his inclusion on, or the means of removing his name therefrom the No Fly List.
The plaintiff sought a declaration that his right to counsel was violated; redress for the defendants' instigating and facilitating his torture in the UAE; an injunction preventing the defendants from violating the above-mentioned rights; and monetary damages in the amount of $30,000,000.
The case was assigned to Judge Anna Brown. On June 17, 2013, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint to add an additional defendant. On November 4, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court heard oral argument on the defendants' motion on March 14, 2014 and took the motion under advisement.
On May 29, 2014, Judge Brown granted the official-capacity defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing all counts except three (denial of his right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment) and four (violation of his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment). The plaintiff had leave to file a second amended complaint consistent with the opinion and order no later than June 27, 2014. 23 F.Supp.3d 1268 (D. Or. May 29, 2014), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73174. The plaintiff eventually filed a series of amended complaints.
In 2015, the government revised the redress procedures available through administrative procedures as a result of the decision in Latif v. Holder, 28 F.Supp.3d 1134 (D.Or. 2014), which held various aspects of the process inadequate under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the APA. As a result, the official-capacity defendants moved for a stay or, in the alternative, an extension of time to allow the defendants to reconsider the plaintiff's application under the new procedure. However, after completing the re-evaluation, the defendants determined that the plaintiff should remain on the No-Fly List.
On January 14, 2015, Judge Brown granted in part and denied in part the official-capacity defendants' unopposed motion. The court agreed that it was appropriate for the official-capacity defendants to reconsider the plaintiff's DHS TRIP inquiry under the new procedures, but the court found that a stay was unnecessary to permit the defendants to do so. In addition, the court noted that this case was now over 18 months old and had not yet proceeded beyond the pleading stage. Accordingly, the court ordered the defendants to complete a substantive reconsideration of the plaintiff's DHS TRIP inquiry no later than March 9, 2015, to move the case along.
The plaintiff filed their corrected fourth amended complaint on April 6, 2015. The defendants again filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction. On November 4, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court held that the plaintiff's allegations were sufficient (1) to state a substantive due process claim based on right to international travel; (2) to state procedural due process claim based on right to international travel and to be free from false government stigmatization; (3) to state a claim for injunctive relief under the Fourth Amendment because the plaintiff was subject to surveillance without a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion; and (4) to state a claim under the Wiretap Act. However, the court also held that the plaintiff's allegations were not sufficient to state a claim under the Stored Communications Act and that he had failed to plead a valid waiver of sovereign immunity for his claim that the FBI failed to comply with FISA. And the court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to seek prospective injunctive relief on the claim that the FBI placed him on the No Fly List while he was abroad in order to subject him to custodial interrogation without the assistance of counsel, because that issue no longer affected him, personally. 142 F.Supp.3d 1152, 2015 WL 6756121, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151522. The court again gave the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to correct the deficiencies, and on November 29, 2015, the plaintiff filed his fifth amended complaint.
On March 16, 2016, Judge Brown found that plaintiff lacked standing to seek declaratory relief on their claim that was brought under the Fourth Amendment. On May 9, 2016, the defendants notified the court that the plaintiff was removed from the No Fly List.
On September 28, 2016, the courted issued an opinion and order, in which it granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissed with prejudice plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint, and denied as moot the defendants’ motion to stay the plaintiff’s due process claims. 2016 WL 5539591, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133307. On October 6, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice in which he stated his non-objection to the court dismissing this action as to the individual capacity defendants, the actions of which were subsequently dismissed without prejudice by the court on October 24, 2016.
On December 23, 2016, the plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 2, 2017, the appellant submitted their opening brief, arguing that (1) the court must reject defendants’ attempt to moot plaintiff’s claims by removing him from the No Fly List years after the start of the litigation; (2) the complaint states a Fourth Amendment Claim for Unlawful Surveillance, Search, and Seizure; and (3) the district court improperly concluded that declaratory relief was not available for the fourth amendment claim. In response, the government argued that (1) the plaintiff’s No Fly List claims are moot because he is no longer on the No Fly List; (2) the government had demonstrated that the alleged wrongful conduct is not likely to occur; (3) the plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief for speculative future claims do not save his current claim from mootness; (4) the plaintiff’s No Fly List claims are not capable of repetition yet evading review; and (5) the district court correctly dismissed the plaintiff’s surveillance claims. Oral argument was scheduled for May 9, 2018 before Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Judge Morgan B. Christen, and Judge Marvin J. Garbis. On June 28, 2018, Judge Marvin J. Garbis retired and was replaced by Judge Milan D. Smith.
On September 20, 2018, the Ninth Circuit found that the allegations in the plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint were vague and conclusory, and did not give rise to a plausible claim for relief. Moreover, since the plaintiff had several opportunities to amend his complaint, and repeatedly failed to do so, the Ninth Circuit found that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing his Fourth Amendment claim with prejudice. 738 Fed.Appx. 545 (Mem), 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26939, 2018 WL 4537720. In a separately filed opinion by Judge Christen, the panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s action as moot, that alleged the FBI violated his substantive and procedural due process rights by placing and maintaining him on the No Fly List. The panel held that plaintiff’s removal from the No Fly List was more likely an exercise of discretion than a decision arising from a broad change in agency policy or procedure, and further held that the government had not assured plaintiff that he would not be banned from flying for the same reasons that prompted the government to add him to the list in the first place, nor had it verified the implementation of procedural safeguards conditioning its ability to revise plaintiff’s status on the receipt of new information. The panel subsequently reversed the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s due process claims and remanded for further proceedings. 904 F.3d 1033, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26880. Costs were taxed against the appellees.
On October 25, 2018, the Ninth Circuit granted the defendants/appellees’ unopposed motion for an extension to file petition for panel rehearing on or before December 5, 2018. The plaintiff filed a petition on that date, but the Ninth Circuit unanimously denied the petition on January 2, 2019.
On May 19, 2019 the plaintiff filed another amended complaint. This one removed previously unresolved claims, added additional factual allegations for the due process claims, and added the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Administrator as defendant. The plaintiffs wanted to add the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) head as a defendant as well, but Judge Brown did not allow this in her order partially granting and denying the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint on May 8. 2019 WL 2030724.
The case was reassigned to Judge Michael W. Mosman on July 15, 2019.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on July 20, 2019. Oral argument before Judge Mosman on the motion was held on November 14; after argument, the Judge granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. He stated that arguments based on travel limitations were moot, but granted the plaintiff the opportunity to amend the complaint to further discuss stigma and reputational damage surrounding previous placement on the No Fly List, which is disseminated nationally and internationally.
The plaintiff filed an amended complaint expanding on the reputational harm of being on the No Fly List on December 18, 2019. The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on January 22, 2020.
On August 12, 2020, Judge Mosman dismissed Fikre’s Seventh Amended Complaint with prejudice. Although the court found that Fikre had standing to pursue a reputational-injury theory based on intensive airport screenings witnessed by community and family members, it held that he failed to state either a substantive or procedural due process claim. The court concluded that the allegations did not show “conscience-shocking” conduct or a viable “stigma-plus” deprivation connected to his 2016 reputational harm, and that further amendment would be futile.
On May 31, 2022, the Ninth Circuit again reversed the district court, holding that Fikre’s No Fly List due process claims were not moot because the government’s new declaration failed to satisfy the voluntary-cessation standard articulated in Fikre I. The panel also rejected the government’s argument that 49 U.S.C. § 46110 barred district-court jurisdiction, explaining that Fikre challenged the Terrorist Screening Center’s initial placement decision, not a TSA final order under DHS TRIP. The court further vacated the dismissal of his stigma-plus procedural due process theory, directing the district court to reconsider whether a viable claim exists when both his prior No Fly List placement and his alleged inclusion in the Terrorist Screening Database are considered together. The case was remanded for merits proceedings on all No Fly List–related substantive and procedural due process claims and the stigma-plus issue.
On March 19, 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Ninth Circuit, holding that the government failed to meet the “formidable burden” required to moot the case through voluntary cessation. The Court concluded that the government’s declaration—stating only that Fikre would not be relisted “based on currently available information”—did not assure that he would not be placed back on the No Fly List for the same or similar conduct in the future, especially given allegations that his initial placement was tied to constitutionally impermissible reasons. The Court emphasized that speculation about Fikre’s post-delisting activities could not substitute for guarantees about the government’s own future conduct, and it rejected the notion that mootness required the government to repudiate past actions. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Kavanaugh, concurred to clarify that the decision does not require disclosure of classified information to establish mootness. By affirming the Ninth Circuit, the Court left intact the remand for further proceedings in the district court.
On January 27, 2025, Fikre filed an Eighth Amended Complaint that substantially expanded the factual record, adding senior national-security officials as defendants and renewing his substantive and procedural due process claims. The complaint detailed the government’s alleged use of the No Fly List and TSDB to coerce him into becoming an informant, the 2010 Sudan interrogation, his 106-day imprisonment and torture in the UAE, and the ongoing reputational and communal stigma he experienced—including during his 2016 hajj pilgrimage. It sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages based on his alleged placement on the watchlist without due process. The defendant subsequently filed a motion to dismiss.
On June 9, 2025, Judge Mosman issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part the government’s motion to dismiss Fikre’s Eighth Amended Complaint. The court dismissed Fikre’s facial challenge to the No Fly List, holding that the complaint did not plausibly allege that there were no constitutional applications of the List or that it lacked a “plainly legitimate sweep,” particularly given that most individuals on the List are foreign nationals who have no constitutional right to enter or travel within the United States. The court also dismissed the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the NSA as defendants, noting that Fikre did not oppose their dismissal and had not alleged an injury traceable to them. However, Judge Mosman denied the remainder of the government’s motion, including its renewed mootness arguments and all other challenges, allowing Fikre’s as-applied due process claims to proceed.
The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Michael Mirdamadi (5/12/2014)
Jessica Kincaid (4/22/2016)
Dawn Lui (12/3/2018)
Ellen Aldin (6/10/2020)
Michael Vandergriff (11/19/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4365955/parties/fikre-v-federal-bureau-of-investigation/
Abbas, Gadeir Ibrahim (District of Columbia)
Attorney, Brandon B.
Bayado, Nadia Islam (Oregon)
Attorney, Brigham John
Attorney, Joshua Paul
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4365955/fikre-v-federal-bureau-of-investigation/
Last updated Nov. 19, 2025, 6:24 p.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Multi-LexSum (in sample)
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 30, 2013
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiff is a citizen and lawful resident of the U.S. who was denied boarding to a flight from the United Arab Emirates to the United States because of his alleged inclusion on the U.S. No Fly List.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Terrorist Screening Center, Federal
U.S. Department of Justice, Federal
U.S. Department of State, Federal
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
District of Oregon 3:13-cv-00899
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 16-36072
Supreme Court of the United States 22-01178
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Access to lawyers or judicial system
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):
Policing: