Ayman Latif v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15429
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- TSC, administered by the FBI, maintains the No-Fly List restricting travel for known or suspected terrorists.
- Plaintiffs—US citizens or lawful permanent residents—believe they are on the List and pursue redress through DHS TRIP, TSA’s grievance program.
- DHS TRIP forwards relevant cases to TSC; TSC decides inclusion/removal based on classified intelligence and informs TSA of final determinations.
- TSA issues letters stating conclusions of DHS TRIP review without confirming or denying List membership or future travel, and may offer administrative or judicial review options.
- District court dismissed for lack of joinder of TSA under 49 U.S.C. § 46110, which restricts appellate review to courts of appeals, raising jurisdictional questions.
- Appellants allege both substantive (incorrect inclusion on List) and procedural (insufficient redress procedures) constitutional and APA claims; the court of appeals reverses and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 46110 deprive district court of jurisdiction over plaintiffs' procedural challenge? | Plaintiffs contend § 46110 does not bar district court review of TSA/TSC procedures. | Defendants argue § 46110 governs review and bars district court relief for TSA orders. | § 46110 does not bar district court jurisdiction for procedural challenge. |
| Is TSA a necessary party whose joinder is required for relief on procedural claims? | TSA should be joined to address redress procedures affecting the List. | Only TSC governs the List; TSA participation is not necessary for relief. | Joinder of TSA may be required; district court should consider on remand. |
| Does the district court have jurisdiction to review Plaintiffs' substantive challenge to inclusion on the List? | Substantive inclusion decisions fall within district court jurisdiction despite § 46110. | § 46110 limits review to TSA-related orders; TSC decisions fall outside. | District court has jurisdiction over substantive challenge. |
| Is the procedural challenge to DHS TRIP review reviewable in district court when the § 46110 framework applies? | Procedural claims involve TSA/TSC processes not exclusively within § 46110's appellate scheme. | Procedural claims should be reviewed under the § 46110 framework via the courts of appeals. | Remand for further proceedings to develop a record on procedural claims; district court retains jurisdiction to consider them. |
| What is the appropriate remedy if relief is granted regarding procedural or substantive challenges? | Remedy should include removal from the List or meaningful contest mechanisms. | Remedy must align with the agency's procedures and potential court of appeals review. | Remand to district court for appropriate relief; the decision to join TSA and conduct discovery is reserved for district court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland Security, 538 F.3d 1250 (9th Cir. 2008) (addressed TSA/DHS review of listings and lack of direct TSA jurisdiction over TSC decisions)
- Americopters, LLC v. FAA, 441 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2006) (limits § 46110 appellate jurisdiction; district court may hear certain claims)
- Crist v. Leippe, 138 F.3d 801 (9th Cir. 1998) (district court jurisdiction over damages against § 46110 agencies; limits and scope)
- Foster v. Skinner, 70 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court jurisdiction over certain constitutional claims against § 46110 agencies)
- Mace v. Skinner, 34 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 1994) (procedural review and limitations under § 46110; damages considerations)
- Tur v. FAA, 104 F.3d 290 (9th Cir. 1997) (inescapably intertwined doctrine and administrative review scope)
- Elgin v. Department of the Treasury, 132 S. Ct. 2126 (2012) (statutory intent for judicial review; standard for preclusion)