FBI v. Fikre
601 U.S. 234 (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's voluntary cessation of a challenged practice moots a case only if the defendant meets the formidable burden of proving that the practice cannot reasonably be expected to recur. A government declaration stating a plaintiff will not be subjected to the challenged action based on 'currently available information' is insufficient to meet this burden.
Facts:
- Yonas Fikre, a U.S. citizen, traveled from his home in Oregon to Sudan in 2009 to pursue business opportunities.
- While at the U.S. embassy in Sudan, two FBI agents informed Fikre that he had been placed on the No Fly List and could not return to the United States.
- The agents questioned Fikre about the Portland mosque he attended and offered to have him removed from the No Fly List if he agreed to become an FBI informant.
- Fikre refused to become an informant.
- Fikre then traveled to the United Arab Emirates, where he alleges he was arrested, imprisoned, and tortured at the behest of the FBI.
- Unable to fly back to the United States, Fikre eventually went to Sweden, where he remained for several years.
Procedural Posture:
- Yonas Fikre filed suit against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, alleging his placement on the No Fly List was unlawful.
- The government notified Fikre that he had been removed from the No Fly List and moved to dismiss the suit as moot.
- The district court granted the government's motion and dismissed the case.
- Fikre (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the district court's dismissal.
- On remand, the government submitted a declaration stating Fikre would not be relisted based on 'currently available information' and again moved to dismiss.
- The district court again granted the motion to dismiss the case as moot.
- Fikre (appellant) again appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which once more reversed the district court's dismissal.
- The government (petitioner) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the government's removal of a plaintiff from the No Fly List and its subsequent declaration that he will not be relisted based on 'currently available information' render his lawsuit challenging his placement on the list moot?
Opinions:
Majority - Gorsuch
No, the government's actions do not render the case moot. A defendant seeking to moot a case through voluntary cessation bears the 'formidable burden' of showing the challenged conduct cannot 'reasonably be expected to recur.' The government's declaration that Fikre will not be relisted based on 'currently available information' is insufficient because it does not address whether the government might relist him if he engages in the same or similar conduct in the future, such as attending his mosque or refusing to be an informant. A defendant's speculation about a plaintiff's actions cannot substitute for a lack of assurance about its own future conduct. The focus is not on whether a defendant repudiates past conduct, but on what it can prove about its future conduct, and the government has not met its burden here.
Concurring - Alito
While concurring with the Court's opinion, this opinion clarifies that the decision does not require the Government to disclose classified information to prove that a case is moot. Requiring disclosure of sensitive national security information could undermine significant government interests. Mootness may be proven through other means, such as non-classified information or evidence obtained from the plaintiff during discovery, which could be sufficient to show the allegedly unlawful listing is unlikely to recur.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high standard for mootness under the voluntary cessation doctrine, particularly for government defendants in national security cases. It clarifies that a government's carefully worded, conditional assurance about future conduct is insufficient to moot a case challenging that conduct. This holding protects a plaintiff's ability to seek redress by preventing the government from strategically ceasing a challenged practice to evade judicial review, only to potentially resume it later. The ruling will likely require the government to provide more definitive and unconditional assurances if it wishes to have such cases dismissed as moot in the future.
