Julia Shearson v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16076
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Shearson, CAIR executive director, was detained at the U.S.–Canada border in 2006 after Customs found an Armed and Dangerous warning tied to her name.
- FOIA disclosures showed Shearson was a positive match to the FBI’s Violent Gang and Terrorist Organization File and a positive Terrorist Screening Database match.
- FBI declined to confirm watchlist status and directed Shearson to the Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (Redress Program) for remedies.
- Shearson filed suit claiming various constitutional and statutory violations; the district court dismissed all claims, including exhaustion-based dismissal of the due process claim.
- On appeal, the court held Shearson must exhaust administrative remedies via the Redress Program before pursuing litigation.
- Court ultimately affirmed the district court’s dismissal on exhaustion grounds; no determination on merits of the due process claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is exhaustion of administrative remedies required? | Shearson argues exhaustion is unnecessary due to inadequate redress through Redress Program. | Government argues exhaustion may be required where available remedies exist. | Exhaustion required before proceeding. |
| Does the Redress Program provide a meaningful administrative remedy for constitutional claims? | Redress Program does not meaningfully address a watchlist-based due process claim. | Program reviews inquiries and can lead to corrections or updates in records. | Program deemed adequate in facilitating internal review and potential relief; exhaustion warranted. |
| Did Shearson have standing to challenge watchlist procedures? | Detention and ongoing watchlist status cause ongoing injury and stigma. | Plaintiff may lack proof of current listing; injury speculative. | Shearson had standing to sue. |
| Should the court decide the merits of the due process claim without exhaustion? | Court should address merits given non-frivolous constitutional challenge. | Merits are premature absent exhaustion. | Merits not reached; court would not decide without exhaustion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ibrahim v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 669 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2012) (standing in watchlist context highly fact-dependent)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (U.S. 1983) (injury must be actual or imminent and redressable)
- McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1992) (exhaustion generally required absent exceptions)
- Shawnee Coal Co. v. Andrus, 661 F.2d 1083 (6th Cir. 1981) (exhaustion exceptions when remedies ineffective)
- Ghaffar v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2008) (non-frivolous constitutional challenges may still require exhaustion)
- Shurney v. INS, 201 F. Supp. 2d 783 (N.D. Ohio 2001) (exhaustion not required where administrative relief would be ineffective)
- Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1993) (APA context and final agency action influence exhaustion)
- Patsy v. Bd. of Regents of State of Fla., 457 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1982) (courts define exhaustion limits in absence of explicit congressional directive)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (elements of standing: injury, causation, redressability)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (U.S. Supreme Court 2013) (standing and injury requirements in extraterritorial contexts)