Summary
This D.C. Circuit opinion addresses whether petitions for review challenging a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) final order placing an individual on the No Fly List are moot after the government removes him from the list and promises not to relist him based on the same information. The court holds that the case is moot because the petitioner seeks only an advisory opinion setting aside the agency's reasoning rather than redressable injunctive or declaratory relief. Consequently, the court dismisses the petitions for lack of Article III jurisdiction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the petitions for review are moot after Moharam’s removal from the No Fly List
- Whether the court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of Moharam’s procedural due‑process claim given the mootness of the underlying agency order
Holdings
- The petitions are moot because the agency’s final order has been superseded by the removal and no further relief is available; the court therefore dismisses the petitions.
Key quotations
“A case is moot if a decision will neither presently affect the parties’ rights nor have a more-than-speculative chance of affecting them in the future.”
Factual background
Fahmi Moharam, a dual U.S.–Yemeni citizen, was placed on the TSA No Fly List in 2017 based on alleged travel to Yemen. He repeatedly requested the underlying information through the TRIP process, receiving only a limited unclassified summary. In May 2024 the government notified him that he had been removed from the List and would not be relisted based on the currently available information.
Procedural history
Moharam was placed on the No Fly List, sought redress through TSA's TRIP process, was later removed from the List, and filed petitions for review in the D.C. Circuit challenging the TSA's final order and procedural due‑process violations. The government moved to dismiss as moot after removal.