University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Beydoun v. Sessions NS-MI-0007
Docket / Court 5:14-cv-13812 ( E.D. Mich. )
Additional Docket(s) 2:16-cv-10123  [ 16-10123 ]  Eastern District of MI (U.S.)
State/Territory Michigan
Case Type(s) National Security
Case Summary
In this case, plaintiff alleged that the additional security delays he experienced when traveling by air constituted a violation of his Constitutional right to travel.

On October 3, 2014, a Michigan resident filed this class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern ... read more >
In this case, plaintiff alleged that the additional security delays he experienced when traveling by air constituted a violation of his Constitutional right to travel.

On October 3, 2014, a Michigan resident filed this class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the FBI and its Terrorist Screening Center (TSC). The plaintiff brought this suit on behalf of himself and "all those who are believed to be included on the No[-]Fly and Terrorist Watch List, have been the victim of harassment and disparate treatment at airports when attempting to board their flights, and have not been given any legitimate means of redress." Represented by private counsel, the plaintiff alleged that the additional delays he experienced when traveling by air – in the form of additional security screenings – constituted a violation of his constitutional right to travel. Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, in addition to attorney’s fees, under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The case was assigned to District Judge Judith Levy.

Shortly after Plaintiff's filing, TSC moved to stay the case until the Sixth Circuit could decide Mokdad v. Holder, which TSC believed would provide controlling precedent as to the court's subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. On February 13, 2015, Judge Levy granted the motion, and the case was stayed pending further development.

Almost one year later in January 2016, after the Mokdad v. Holder appeal was resolved in favor of the FBI and the Department of Justice, TSC moved to dismiss the case. On July 14, 2016, Judge Levy granted TSC's motion to dismiss for Plaintiff's failure to join a necessary party, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). In Mokdad v. Holder, the Sixth Circuit held that a challenge to the redress process for the Selectee List was, in effect, a challenge to a TSA order, thus making TSA a necessary party. Judge Levy determined that the Plaintiff in this case had challenged only the redress process and not his inclusion on the list in the first place, thus making Mokdad binding. For reasons unclear, Plaintiff expressly stated at the case's hearing that he did not want to amend his complaint to include TSA as a defendant, so Judge Levy dismissed the complaint.

In the same opinion, Judge Levy also denied Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint on the grounds that it would be futile. Because Plaintiff did not seek to amend his complaint to join the TSA as a party, the court concluded that his challenge to the redress process would be unsuccessful. Further, the court reasoned that a direct challenge to the plaintiff’s placement on the Selectee List would also fail because it did not establish a violation of a constitutional interest protected by the Due Process Clause.

On August 17, 2016, Plaintiff appealed the case to the Sixth Circuit, which consolidated this case (docket no. 16-2168) with Bazzi v. Sessions (docket no. 16-2406). Bazzi v. Sessions asserted similar facts, invoked the same causes of action, and was dismissed by the District Court for similar reasons; however, Bazzi additionally named the TSA as a defendant. The Sixth Circuit reviewed both of the District Court's determinations de novo. On September 12, 2017, the Sixth Circuit found that, although the District Court erred in saying that the plaintiffs had not challenged their initial inclusion on the Selectee List in their separate complaints, the District Court's constitutional analysis was correct in finding that the plaintiffs could not prove a deprivation of their constitutional rights. The Sixth Circuit specifically noted that the plaintiffs had significantly limited their options by making no equal protection claim and by expressly abandoning a procedural due process claim during oral arguments, leaving only the possibility of a substantive due process claim. 871 F.3d 459.

The plaintiffs petitioned to have the case reheard en banc, but the appellate court denied the plaintiffs’ motion on November 28, 2017. The case is now closed.

Sean Drohan - 06/29/2021


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Right to travel
Defendant-type
Law-enforcement
General
Search policies
Terrorism/Post 9-11 issues
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Defendant(s) Terrorist Screening Center
Plaintiff Description U.S. citizen who alleged he had been placed on the FBI's "Selectee List" for enhanced airport screening.
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status outcome Mooted before ruling
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Defendant
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief None
Filed 10/03/2014
Case Closing Year 2017
Case Ongoing No
Court Docket(s)
E.D. Mich.
12/06/2017
5:14-cv-13812-JEL-MJH
NS-MI-0007-9000.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
E.D. Mich.
10/03/2014
Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief [ECF# 1]
NS-MI-0007-0001.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
02/13/2015
Opinion and Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Stay [6] [ECF# 10] (2015 WL 631948)
NS-MI-0007-0002.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
E.D. Mich.
07/14/2016
Opinion and Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [15] [ECF# 27] (2016 WL 3753561)
NS-MI-0007-0003.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
U.S. Court of Appeals
09/12/2017
Opinion [Ct. of App. ECF# 36-1 & 36-2 & 36-3] (871 F.3d 459)
NS-MI-0007-0004.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Clay, Eric L. (Sixth Circuit) show/hide docs
NS-MI-0007-0004
Griffin, Richard Allen (Sixth Circuit) show/hide docs
NS-MI-0007-0004
Hluchaniuk, Michael J. (E.D. Mich.) [Magistrate] show/hide docs
NS-MI-0007-9000
Levy, Judith Ellen (E.D. Mich.) show/hide docs
NS-MI-0007-0002 | NS-MI-0007-0003 | NS-MI-0007-9000
Thapar, Amul Roger (E.D. Ky., Sixth Circuit) show/hide docs
NS-MI-0007-0004
Plaintiff's Lawyers Ayad, Nabih H (Michigan) show/hide docs
NS-MI-0007-0001 | NS-MI-0007-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Bowen, Brigham J. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
NS-MI-0007-9000
Elliott, Stephen McCoy (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
NS-MI-0007-9000
Folio, Joseph C III (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
NS-MI-0007-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -