Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland Security
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2457
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Ibrahim, a Malaysian citizen and Stanford Ph.D. student (2001–2005), alleges she was mistakenly placed on the No-Fly List and other watchlists.
- On January 2, 2005, at San Francisco Airport she was detained for two hours after airline staff and police discovered her No-Fly List status; FBI later released her.
- She traveled to Malaysia for a conference and was later prevented from returning to the United States; she has not been permitted to re-enter.
- TSA and DHS measures involve the TSDB and subsets used for No-Fly and Selectee lists; redress processes exist but are criticized as opaque.
- Ibrahim filed suit in 2006 seeking First and Fifth Amendment injunctive relief and challenges to watchlist placement; district court dismissed some claims, leading to appellate review.
- The Ninth Circuit held Ibrahim has standing to challenge watchlists and that she may assert First and Fifth Amendment claims against federal defendants; remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek prospective relief | Ibrahim has a real and imminent injury from watchlist placement and travel barriers. | No current injury or redressable harm; potential visa issues and travel restrictions are non-redressable. | Ibrahim has standing to challenge watchlists for prospective relief. |
| Right to assert First/Fifth Amendment claims outside the United States | Significant voluntary connection gives standing to assert constitutional claims. | Outside-the-US status limits rights and redress may be unavailable. | Ibrahim may assert First and Fifth Amendment claims due to significant voluntary connection. |
| Constitutional merits vs. standing/preemption | Claims under First/Fifth Amendments should proceed to merits. | Standing/justiciability deprives merits review; visa denials are non-reviewable as a matter of law. | Proceedings on discovery and related issues; court notes rights to challenge watchlist placement, not visa decisions. |
| Discovery rulings and access to Sensitive Security Information | Discovery should yield broader access to logs, TSDB documents, and non-testifying experts. | Security and statutory safeguards restrict disclosure and expert details. | Court vacates in part and remands; governs access to specified discovery and expert-related materials. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (U.S. 2008) (adopts functional approach to rights of aliens outside United States)
- Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1990) (examines voluntary connection to the U.S. for Fourth Amendment rights)
- Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (U.S. 1950) (enemy aliens abroad have no due process rights to Writ of Habeas Corpus)
- Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590 (U.S. 1953) (seaman with American ties; rights based on connection to U.S.)
- Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21 (U.S. 1982) (due process for resident aliens on re-entry after brief absence)
- Boumediene, 553 U.S. at 764, Boumediene v. Bush (U.S. 2008) (functional approach governs extraterritorial rights)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (injury must be likely redressable by court action)