Yonas Fikre v. Fbi, 904 F.3d 1033

Background

Yonas Fikre, a U.S. citizen, was placed on the federal No Fly List and told by FBI agents in Sudan he could be removed only if he became an informant; he refused.
Fikre was detained and allegedly tortured abroad, was unable to return to the U.S., sought refuge in Sweden, and later returned to the U.S. after being denied asylum.
He sued the United States alleging substantive due process (loss of reputation and right to international travel; coercion to inform) and procedural due process (insufficient notice and hearing regarding No Fly placement), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
While the suit was pending, the government removed Fikre from the No Fly List and the district court dismissed his due process claims as moot, noting the removal and the government’s apparent good faith.
On appeal the Ninth Circuit held the voluntary-cessation doctrine applies: the government’s individualized, unexplained removal was not an entrenched policy change and did not eliminate the possibility of recurrence or the lingering stigmatic harms.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court and remanded, finding Fikre’s due process claims not moot and that effective relief remained available.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff's due process claims are moot after removal from the No Fly List	Removal was voluntary cessation; government can re-list him and has not explained its prior listing or current removal, so claims remain live	Removal renders claims moot because the requested injunctive relief (removal) has been achieved and government action is in good faith	Not moot: voluntary-cessation exception applies because removal was individualized, unexplained, and not shown to be permanent
Whether government’s notice of removal is an adequate, binding change in status	Fikre argued no binding policy or procedural safeguards were adopted to prevent reinstatement; reputational harms persist	Government argued the public notice of removal is a formal agency action showing the behavior won’t recur	Court held mere notice insufficient; government must show change is entrenched or permanent
Whether relief remains available despite removal	Fikre argued declaratory relief and official repudiation would alleviate lingering stigma and guard against reinstatement	Government argued no effective relief remains because he can fly now	Court held effective relief exists (e.g., declarations, explanations) and removal didn’t eradicate harms
Burden of proof on mootness when government voluntarily ceases challenged conduct	Fikre argued government bears heavy burden to prove no reasonable expectation of recurrence	Government argued presumption of good faith and its public action meets burden	Court held government bears burden and failed to meet it on this record

Key Cases Cited

Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (explaining mootness and voluntary cessation standard)
County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625 (voluntary cessation exception to mootness requiring assurance violation will not recur)
United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (voluntary cessation principle)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (heavy burden on party asserting mootness)
McCormack v. Herzog, 788 F.3d 1017 (need for governmental change to be entrenched/permanent to moot case)
White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214 (administrative policy change can moot claim when broad, unequivocal, and permanent)