Fahmi Moharam v. TSA
22-1184
| D.C. Cir. | Apr 18, 2025Background
- Fahmi Ahmed Moharam, a dual U.S.-Yemeni citizen, was placed on the No Fly List due to his travel and activities in Yemen between 2011–2017.
- After being denied boarding in 2017, Moharam learned about his No Fly status through the TSA's redress process (DHS TRIP).
- The government gave only a sparse, unclassified summary explaining his listing, citing national security for withholding more details.
- Moharam challenged his placement on the No Fly List as arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of procedural due process, filing suit and seeking review after exhausting administrative remedies.
- Before the appellate ruling, Moharam was removed from the No Fly List, and the government assured he would not be relisted based on current information, prompting the court to examine mootness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of Case After Removal | Removal should not moot; seeks court ruling on past agency actions | Claims are moot; no longer on the List, so no relief court can grant | Petitions moot; removal eradicates injury |
| Authority to Rescind TSA Final Order | TRIP letter doesn’t rescind final order, so court could redress injury | TRIP notification after TSC review supersedes prior TSA order | TRIP removal letter supersedes agency order |
| Advisory Opinion and Redressability | Wants court to set aside past action to affect future government conduct | Courts can't issue opinions without live controversy | No advisory opinions; no effect as relief |
| Capable of Repetition, Yet Evading Review | Removal could be temporary; future recurrence possible | Any new listing would involve a new record/not the same conduct | No reasonable expectation conduct will recur |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (standing requirements)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (voluntary cessation and mootness)
- Clarke v. United States, 915 F.2d 699 (defining the wrong for mootness under voluntary cessation)
- Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U.S. 255 (remedies require live injury, not just advisory opinions)
- United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Exp. Ass’n, 393 U.S. 199 (voluntary cessation exception to mootness)
- Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (assumption of success on relief for jurisdictional analysis)
- Anderson v. Carter, 802 F.3d 4 (reputational injury insufficient to sustain jurisdiction post-mooting)
- Kashem v. Barr, 941 F.3d 358 (TRIP/TSC process)
- FBI v. Fikre, 601 U.S. 234 (No Fly List mootness; facts distinguished here)