Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre
Case Overview
The Supreme Court addressed the government's attempt to use the voluntary cessation doctrine to moot a lawsuit challenging the no-fly list after it removed a plaintiff from the list during litigation, holding that voluntary removal from a no-fly list does not moot a challenge to the list when the government retains authority to relist the plaintiff and offers no binding assurance the challenged conduct will not recur.
BrynoDC Coverage 5 videos
The Facts
Yonas Fikre, a U.S. citizen, was placed on the federal no-fly list, preventing him from boarding commercial flights. He was detained and questioned by the FBI abroad about suspected terrorist ties, and was told he would be removed from the list if he agreed to become a government informant. He refused and filed suit challenging his placement on the list as unconstitutional. After suit was filed, the government removed him from the no-fly list and argued the case was moot because the challenged harm had ended.
The Application
The government failed to satisfy the voluntary cessation doctrine because it offered no binding assurance it would not relist Fikre under the same procedures that gave rise to his original placement, and it retained full authority to do so. The government's inability or unwillingness to explain why Fikre was initially listed or why he was removed demonstrated that the constitutional defect in the listing process (the lack of adequate notice and opportunity to be heard) remained unresolved. Under the demanding standard requiring the defendant to show it is "absolutely clear" the wrongful conduct will not recur, silence on whether Fikre would be subjected to the same process if relisted was fatal to the government's mootness claim.
The Conclusion
**Decided March 6, 2024. The Court held unanimously that removing Fikre from the no-fly list did not moot his case.** The government failed to explain why he was originally listed or why he was removed, making it impossible to determine whether the allegedly unlawful conduct (being placed on the list without adequate process) would not recur. The case was remanded for further proceedings, preserving constitutional challenges to the no-fly list screening process.
No circuit court data for this case.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support