Latif v. Holder

Rule of Law:

The government's redress procedure for individuals placed on the No-Fly List violates the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of procedural due process when it fails to provide meaningful notice of the reasons for inclusion on the list and a fair opportunity to rebut the government's evidence.

Facts:

• Thirteen U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (Plaintiffs), including four military veterans, were denied boarding on commercial flights traveling to, from, or over the United States.
• Some Plaintiffs were explicitly told by airline employees or government officials, such as FBI agents, that they were on the No-Fly List.
• The inability to fly caused Plaintiffs significant personal, professional, and financial hardships, including long-term separation from spouses and children, loss of employment opportunities, inability to attend religious pilgrimages, and termination of veteran's disability benefits.
• For many Plaintiffs, alternative modes of international travel by sea or land were prohibitively expensive, physically impossible, or too time-consuming.
• Some Plaintiffs attempting to return to the U.S. by alternative routes were subjected to lengthy detentions and interrogations by U.S. and foreign authorities.
• Several Plaintiffs were told by FBI agents that their names could be removed from the No-Fly List if they agreed to serve as government informants.
• Each Plaintiff submitted an application for redress through the Department of Homeland Security Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP).
• In response, each Plaintiff received a determination letter that did not confirm or deny their presence on any list, nor did it provide any reasons for their travel difficulties or a path for meaningful rebuttal.

Procedural Posture:

• Plaintiffs filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
• The District Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
• Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
• The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the court had original jurisdiction over the claims, and remanded the case.
• On remand, Plaintiffs and Defendants filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on the procedural due process and Administrative Procedure Act claims.