FBI v. Fikre, 601 U.S. ___ (2024)
The case involves Yonas Fikre, a U.S. citizen and Sudanese emigree, who brought a lawsuit alleging that the government unlawfully placed him on the No Fly List. Fikre claimed that the government violated his rights to procedural due process and placed him on the list for constitutionally impermissible reasons related to his race, national origin, and religious beliefs. In 2016, the government removed Fikre from the No Fly List, and argued in court that this action rendered Fikre's lawsuit moot. The district court agreed with the government's assessment, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, stating that a party seeking to moot a case based on its own voluntary cessation of challenged conduct must show that the conduct cannot “reasonably be expected to recur.”
The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Ninth Circuit's decision. It held that the government failed to demonstrate that the case was moot. The Court stated that a defendant's "voluntary cessation of a challenged practice" will moot a case only if the defendant can prove that the practice cannot "reasonably be expected to recur." The Court found that the government's declaration that it will not relist Fikre based on "currently available information" did not suffice to demonstrate that Fikre will not be placed on the No Fly List in the future if he engages in the same or similar conduct. Therefore, the government has not borne its burden of proving that the dispute is moot.
A lawsuit alleging that the government illegally placed a person on the No Fly List did not become moot when the government removed him from the list.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION et al. v. FIKRE
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
No. 22–1178. Argued January 8, 2024—Decided March 19, 2024
Respondent Yonas Fikre, a U. S. citizen and Sudanese emigree, brought suit alleging that the government placed him on the No Fly List unlawfully. In his complaint, Mr. Fikre alleged that he traveled from his home in Portland, Oregon to Sudan in 2009 to pursue business opportunities there. At a visit to the U. S. embassy, two FBI agents informed Mr. Fikre that he could not return to the United States because the government had placed him on the No Fly List. The agents questioned him extensively about the Portland mosque he attended, and they offered to take steps to remove him from the No Fly List if he agreed to become an FBI informant and to report on other members of his religious community. Mr. Fikre refused. He then traveled to the United Arab Emirates, where he alleges authorities interrogated and detained him for 106 days at the behest of the FBI. Unable to fly back to the United States, he ended up in Sweden, where he remained until February 2015. While there, he filed this suit, alleging that the government had violated his rights to procedural due process by failing to provide either meaningful notice of his addition to the No Fly List or any appropriate way to secure redress. He further alleged that the government had placed him on the list for constitutionally impermissible reasons related to his race, national origin, and religious beliefs. Mr. Fikre sought, among other things, an injunction prohibiting the government from keeping him on the No Fly List and a declaratory judgment confirming the government had violated his rights. In May 2016, the government notified Mr. Fikre that he had been removed from the No Fly List and sought dismissal of his suit in district court, arguing that its administrative action had rendered the case moot. The district court agreed with the government, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that a party seeking to moot a case based on its own voluntary cessation of challenged conduct must show that the conduct cannot “reasonably be expected to recur.” 904 F.3d 1033, 1039. On remand, the government submitted a declaration asserting that, based on the currently available information, Mr. Fikre would not be placed on the No Fly List in the future, and the district court again dismissed Mr. Fikre’s claim as moot. The Ninth Circuit once again reversed, holding that the government had failed to meet its burden because the declaration did not disclose the conduct that landed Mr. Fikre on the No Fly List and did not ensure that he would not be placed back on the list for engaging in the same or similar conduct in the future. 35 F. 4th 762, 770–772.
Held: The government has failed to demonstrate that this case is moot. A court with jurisdiction has a “virtually unflagging obligation” to hear and resolve questions properly before it. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976). But the converse is also true as a federal court must dismiss a case that is moot. Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013). The limited authority vested in federal courts by Article III of the U. S. Constitution to decide cases and controversies means that federal courts may no more pronounce on past actions that have no “continuing effect” in the world than they may neglect their obligation to hear and resolve questions properly before them. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 18. This does not imply that a defendant may “automatically moot a case” by the simple expedient of suspending its challenged conduct after it is sued. Instead, a defendant’s “voluntary cessation of a challenged practice” will moot a case only if the defendant can show that the practice cannot “reasonably be expected to recur.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189. This standard holds for governmental defendants no less than for private ones. Applying these principles to the uncontested factual allegations here, this case is not moot. While the government’s representation that it will not relist Mr. Fikre may mean that his past conduct is not enough to warrant relisting, that does not speak to whether the government might relist him if he engages in the same or similar conduct in the future. The government contends that because Mr. Fikre has been delisted since 2016 and has presumably interacted freely with his co-religionists during that time, it is unlikely he will face relisting in the future. This too is insufficient to warrant dismissal. A defendant’s speculation about a plaintiff’s actions cannot make up for a lack of assurance about its own. The burden here is on the defendant to establish that it cannot reasonably be expected to resume its challenged conduct, see West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697, 719, and nothing the government offers here satisfies that formidable standard. The government claims the Ninth Circuit erred by requiring it to repudiate its past conduct to prove mootness, but what matters is not whether a defendant repudiates its past actions, but what the defendant can prove about its future conduct. Coming as this case does in a preliminary posture, the Court’s judgment is a necessarily provisional one. As the complaint’s allegations are tested, different facts may emerge that may call for a different result. But adhering to traditional mootness principles, the government has so far failed to meet its burden. Pp. 5–10.
35 F. 4th 762, affirmed.
Gorsuch, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Alito, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Kavanaugh, J., joined.
Judgment Issued. |
Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Gorsuch, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Alito, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Kavanaugh, J., joined. |
Letter of Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al. submitted. |
Letter of petitioners Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Argued. For petitioners: Sopan Joshi, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Gadeir Abbas, Washington, D. C. |
Reply of petitioners Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Reply of Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al. submitted. |
Amicus brief of Institute for Justice submitted. |
Amicus brief of Restore the Fourth, Inc. and the Forum for Constitutional Rights submitted. |
Amicus brief of Constitutional Law Center for Muslims in America submitted. |
Amicus brief of Asian Americans Advancing Justice and Other Asian-American Civil Rights Organizations submitted. |
Amicus brief of Patrick G. Eddington submitted. |
Amicus brief of Cato Institute submitted. |
Amicus brief of American Civil Liberties Union and The ACLU Foundation of Oregon submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Law Center for Muslims in America filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Restore the Fourth, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Patrick G. Eddington filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Asian Americans Advancing Justice, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Sikh Coalition, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Amicus brief of Sikh Coalition and First Liberty Institute submitted. |
Amicus brief of Liberty Justice Center submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of Liberty Justice Center filed. (Distributed) |
Brief of respondent Yonas Fikre filed. (Distributed) |
Brief of Yonas Fikre submitted. |
Sealed material from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon electronically available with the Clerk. |
CIRCULATED |
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, January 8, 2024. |
Record requested from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. |
Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in support of neither party filed. |
Amicus brief of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty submitted. |
Record received from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The record is electronic and available on PACER. |
Brief of petitioners filed. |
Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners GRANTED. |
Motion of Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al. to dispense with joint appendix submitted. |
Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al. |
Motion of Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al. to dispense with joint appendix submitted. |
Petition GRANTED. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023. |
Reply of petitioners Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al. filed. |
Brief of respondent Yonas Fikre in opposition filed. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 21, 2023. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 6, 2023 to August 21, 2023, submitted to The Clerk. |
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 6, 2023) |
Application (22A822) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until June 2, 2023. |
Application (22A822) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from April 4, 2023 to June 2, 2023, submitted to Justice Kagan. |