Saeb Mokdad v. Loretta E. Lynch
804 F.3d 807
| 6th Cir. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Saeb Mokdad, a U.S. citizen, alleges he was denied boarding multiple times since 2012 because he is on the federal No Fly List, maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC).
- Mokdad sought redress through DHS TRIP; DHS sent a determination letter and informed him of TSA administrative appeal rights under statutes and regulations but he did not appeal to TSA or file in the court of appeals.
- Mokdad sued in district court (naming DOJ/FBI/TSC officials, not TSA) seeking removal from the No Fly List and declaratory/injunctive relief challenging both his placement on the list and the adequacy of the TSA redress procedures.
- The government moved to dismiss under 49 U.S.C. § 46110, which grants the courts of appeals exclusive review of certain TSA (and related) agency orders; the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, treating TSC-related claims as inescapably intertwined with TSA orders.
- The Sixth Circuit (Gibbons, J.) reversed in part: (1) held district courts have jurisdiction to hear direct challenges to TSC placements on the No Fly List (TSC is not covered by § 46110); (2) dismissed without prejudice claims attacking the TSA redress process because Mokdad failed to join TSA, a required party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court has jurisdiction to hear a direct challenge to placement on No Fly List (a TSC action) | Mokdad: TSC, not TSA, places names on No Fly List; § 46110 does not cover TSC, so district court has jurisdiction | Government: TSC placement is inescapably intertwined with TSA orders and § 46110 channels review to courts of appeals | Held: District court has jurisdiction to hear direct challenge to TSC placement; reversed dismissal and remanded |
| Whether district court can hear claims challenging adequacy of TSA redress procedures | Mokdad: redress process is futile/insufficient and violates APA and Due Process | Government: § 46110 and exclusive-review framework strip district court jurisdiction; procedure is essentially a TSA matter | Held: Court did not reach § 46110 question; dismissed these claims without prejudice because Mokdad failed to join TSA, a required party |
| Applicability/scope of "inescapable intertwinement" doctrine to claims involving multiple agencies | Mokdad: doctrine should not extend to pull a non-covered agency (TSC) into § 46110's exclusive scheme | Government: doctrine should apply where another covered agency's order depends on the non-covered agency's action | Held: Court refuses to expand doctrine to encompass a non-covered agency’s order merely because a covered agency’s actions relate to it; inescapable intertwinement does not automatically channel TSC claims into § 46110 review |
| Whether prior exhaustion through TSA redress compels exclusive appellate-court review | Mokdad: he exhausted DHS TRIP; further suit in district court is appropriate against TSC | Government: exhaustion through TSA shows TSA/DHS control, making appellate exclusive review appropriate | Held: Exhaustion requirement is distinct from forum-selection under § 46110; exhaustion does not convert TSC claims into matters exclusively for courts of appeals |
Key Cases Cited
- Ibrahim v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 538 F.3d 1250 (9th Cir. 2008) (No Fly List maintained by TSC is not covered by § 46110; district court jurisdiction over TSC placement claims)
- Latif v. Holder, 686 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (extended Ibrahim to challenges about adequacy of process to contest apparent inclusion on No Fly List)
- Shearson v. Holder, 725 F.3d 588 (6th Cir. 2013) (plaintiff challenging No Fly List inclusion must exhaust TSA administrative redress)
- City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma, 357 U.S. 320 (1958) (exclusive-review statutes preclude de novo litigation and channel objections to courts of appeals)
- Merritt v. Shuttle, Inc., 245 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2001) (formulation of "inescapable intertwinement" standard for exclusive-review statutes)
- Americans for Safe Access v. DEA, 706 F.3d 438 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (discusses interplay of agency actions where one agency’s determinations are binding on another)
- Tur v. FAA, 104 F.3d 290 (9th Cir. 1997) (claims that are inescapably intertwined with an FAA order are within courts of appeals' exclusive review)
- Ligon v. LaHood, 614 F.3d 150 (5th Cir. 2010) (district courts lack jurisdiction over damages claims inescapably intertwined with FAA order)
- Burdue v. FAA, 774 F.3d 1076 (6th Cir. 2014) (context on § 46110 and agency-review framework)