Nasser Beydoun v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, 871 F.3d 459

Background

Plaintiffs Nasser Beydoun and Maan Bazzi (U.S. citizens) allege they were subjected to repeated enhanced airport screening and delays because they are on the federal "Selectee List," a subset of the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB).
Both plaintiffs used DHS TRIP redress procedures but received generic responses and were not told whether they are on the Selectee List.
Beydoun sued the Attorney General, FBI Director, and TSC Director in 2014; Bazzi filed a nearly identical suit in 2016 (Bazzi also named the TSA Administrator).
Each complaint asserted (1) Fifth Amendment due process violations and (2) APA claims challenging agency action; plaintiffs later disavowed procedural-challenge claims and pressed substantive due process theories.
The district court dismissed both complaints for failure to state a claim and denied Beydoun leave to amend as futile; the Sixth Circuit consolidated the appeals and affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether complaints directly challenge placement on the Selectee List vs. only DHS TRIP procedures	Plaintiffs contend they challenge placement on the List itself (not merely the redress procedure)	Government argued complaints only attacked DHS TRIP redress process	Court: District court erred to the extent it read complaints as only procedural challenges, but affirmation rests on merits—plaintiffs nonetheless failed to state an APA/substantive-due-process claim
Whether being on Selectee List implicates fundamental right to travel	Plaintiffs: enhanced screening and delays deterred travel and burdened right to travel	Government: alleged delays are incidental/negligible and do not significantly interfere with travel	Held: Alleged delays (minutes to an hour; travel not prevented) are incidental; no protected right to travel impairment
Whether stigmatizing association with terrorism (reputational harm) plus a "plus" deprivation was alleged	Plaintiffs: being singled out stigmatized them as terrorists, harming reputation; rely on travel burden as the "plus"	Government: even assuming stigma, plaintiffs were not deprived of any legal right (they still could travel)	Held: Stigma-plus requirement not met because no deprivation of a previously held right (travel not denied)
Whether denial of leave to amend was an abuse of discretion	Beydoun: district court should have allowed amendment to add factual detail supporting travel/stigma harms	Government: plaintiff offered no proposed amendment or facts showing amendment could survive dismissal	Held: No abuse of discretion; amendment would be futile because plaintiff failed to identify facts that could cure defects

Key Cases Cited

Mokdad v. Lynch, 804 F.3d 807 (6th Cir. 2015) (interpreting similar complaint challenging placement on terrorism-related watchlists)
Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972) (recognition of travel as a constitutional right)
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) (right to travel as part of liberty protected by Due Process)
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) (substantive due process protects only deeply rooted fundamental rights)
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) (government action must significantly interfere with travel to implicate the right)
League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Bredesen, 500 F.3d 523 (6th Cir. 2007) (incidental burdens do not trigger travel scrutiny)
Torraco v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey, 615 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2010) (day-long travel delay insufficient to show denial of right to travel)
Doe v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 490 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2007) (stigma-plus test for reputational liberty claims)
Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) (reputational harm alone does not invoke constitutional protection)
Bangura v. Hansen, 434 F.3d 487 (6th Cir. 2006) (substantive due process burden requires strict scrutiny)
Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055 (6th Cir. 1998) (standards for substantive due process challenges)