20 F.4th 804
D.C. Cir.2021Background
- The Jibril family (U.S. citizens of Jordanian origin) experienced extensive airport screening during a 2018 international trip: SSSS printed on boarding passes, lengthy pat-downs (including minors), luggage and electronic searches, interrogations, and preclearance detention in Abu Dhabi that caused them to miss a flight.
- The family used DHS’s Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP); DHS replied with the standard "cannot confirm nor deny" language and made unspecified record corrections for some members.
- The Jibrils sued DHS, TSA, CBP, FBI, and related officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and the APA, alleging (inter alia) unlawful searches, warrantless phone searches, prolonged detention, improper treatment of minors, and an inadequate TRIP process.
- The District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for lack of Article III standing, finding no plausible imminent risk of future injury.
- The D.C. Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part: it held the family plausibly alleged imminent and substantial risk of future harm (so they have standing for most prospective claims), but lacked standing for prospective claims tied specifically to certain alleged violations of detention-family/minor-protection policies; those dismissals should have been without prejudice.
- The court emphasized that plaintiffs did not seek damages (including nominal damages) and thus the appeal concerned standing for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek prospective relief (imminence) | Frequent travel history, religious travel obligations, and desire to continue travel make future flights likely; TRIP responses do not eliminate risk | No substantial or imminent risk; TRIP responses and government processes reduce likelihood of recurrence | Plaintiffs plausibly alleged imminent/substantial risk and thus have standing for most prospective claims |
| Whether 2018 treatment plausibly shows Selectee-list watchlisting | SSSS on boarding passes, intrusive searches/interrogations, and TRIP replies support inference they were on Selectee List in 2018 | Allegations are compatible with non-watchlist explanations; government evidence (decls/report) shows most enhanced screenings are not DB-related | Court finds inference plausible at pleading stage; government materials not considered to defeat pleading-stage inference |
| Whether TRIP responses moot or cure risk | TRIP’s ‘‘cannot confirm or deny’’ and cursory replies leave family unable to learn or prevent future targeting; thus TRIP is inadequate | TRIP responses and regular audits update list; process negates need for court relief | TRIP responses do not moot claims; plaintiffs may challenge adequacy of TRIP and seek prospective relief |
| Standing for claims alleging violations of detention/minor-protection policies | Policies protecting juveniles and keeping families together were violated; plaintiffs seek prospective relief to prevent recurrence | No plausible allegation those specific policy violations will recur; lack of imminent risk for these particular claims | Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue prospective relief for those specific policy-violation claims; dismissal should be without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) (prospective relief requires injury that is certainly impending or a substantial risk)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete, particularized, actual or imminent injury)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (injunctive relief requires showing of likelihood of future harm)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (standing limits for plaintiffs alleging future injury)
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014) (standard for imminence in prospective suits)
- Kareem v. Haspel, 986 F.3d 859 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (pleadings on information and belief must state supporting facts when necessary info is in defendant’s control)
- In re Navy Chaplaincy, 697 F.3d 1171 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (past exposure to challenged procedures can support plausible inference of future injury)
- Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 141 S. Ct. 792 (2021) (nominal damages can redress past constitutional injuries)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (injury must be concrete as well as particularized)