Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre

-

Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre

Unbiased Case Analysis:

In 2010 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) placed Yonas Fikre on their No Fly List. The FBI’s No Fly List bans anyone on the list from flying to, form, or over the United States. Yonas Fikre is a U.S. citizen who is Muslim and of Eritrean descent. He traveled to Sudan in 2010 on business but was questioned by the FBI. The FBI was suspicious of his activities and ties to the community. The FBI offered to bring Fikre on as an informant, but he refused. Later, he traveled to the United Arab Emirates where he was arrested and tortured for months by the country’s secret police. Eventually, he was released and sought asylum in Sweden. However, Sweden denied asylum and returned him to the United States.

            Yonas Fikre sued the FBI for violating his Fifth Amendment right to due process. The FBI removed him from the No Fly List and claimed the case was now moot. When a case becomes moot it is no longer relevant because of the reason for the case has been resolved. The FBI alleged that the case was moot because they removed Yonas Fikre from the No Fly List and swore to not put him back on. The problem is that they did not specifically say what he did wrong to put on the No Fly List. The case was initially dismissed by the district court but reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case was again heard by the district court only to be dismissed again. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit again reversed the district court’s ruling which prompted the FBI to appeal to the Supreme Court.

            The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Fikre. The Court found that the government cannot avoid judicial review by removing individuals from the No Fly List and making vague claims they would not do it again. Although Fikre was removed from the No Fly List and given a sworn declaration it would not happen again with the current available information, he was not told what exactly he did to be put on the list in the first place. The Court found that the government must do more to prove mootness in similar cases. The FBI did not give enough information for either Fikre or the courts to know whether he could avoid going on the No Fly List again. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. Justice Samuel Alito authored a concurring opinion in which Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined him. They clarified that the ruling on this case does not force the government to disclosure sensitive information that could fail national security interests. Cases like this can be resolved in the future with non-classified information or just enough sensitive information to prove mootness.

Personal Perspective:

            I agree with the Court’s unanimous decision. The FBI were clearly trying to avoid judicial review by claiming mootness. However, their claims of mootness were not well founded. They took Fikre off the No Fly List and promised not to do so with the information they currently held. They did not make it clear what landed Fikre on the No Fly List in the first place. They did not need to provide every single detail surrounding the decision to place Fikre on the No Fly List. However, they did need to provide enough substantial information to justify their decisions and claims of mootness.

Media Critique and Analysis:

            I was disappointed in the lack of coverage surrounding Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre. Notable outlets including CNN and Fox News neglected to report on the case. I was hard pressed to find coverage from left leaning outlets on the case. Left leaning outlets such as Yahoo News were neutral and somewhat leaning towards Fikre’s side. Right leaning outlets such as the National Review praised the Court’s decision and its implications. Overall, coverage of the case favored Yonas Fikre and painted the FBI in a negative light.

Sources:

Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre | Oyez

Supreme Court unanimously rules against government in No Fly List case

No Fly List: Supreme Court Rules in FBI v. Fikre | National Review

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College

-
Image
  Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College Unbiased case analysis:             Harvard College uses an admissions process that considers the race of applicants to determine whether they should be accepted or not. This is a common practice for many colleges in the United States. Harvard College was sued by Students for Fair Admissions over their use of affirmative action. Affirmative action is simply an action that helps specific demographic groups due to the United States’ history of discrimination. A district court ruled in favor of Harvard and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Frist Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The case was eventually brought before the Supreme Court. It was initially going to be consolidated with another case, but the Court chose to hear it individually.             The Court ruled 6-2 in favor of ...
Read more

Biden v. Nebraska

-
Image
Unbiased Case Analysis:             During his presidential run Joe Biden promised to cancel up to $10,000 of federal student loan debt per borrower. He kept his word and used executive action to enact his promise. Nebraska and five other states challenged Biden and his forgiveness program. They argued on the grounds that it violated the separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed the case. The Supreme Court stepped in to decide on it.             The Court decided 6-3 in favor of Nebraska. The Court found that the Secretary of education does not authority under the HEROES Act “…to establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel roughly $430 billion in dept principal and affect nearly all borrowers.” Most of the justices cited the major questions doctrine as their reaso...
Read more

Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer

-
Image
For my first blog post I am going to examine one of the latest cases SCOTUS ruled on: Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer. Unbiased Case Analysis: Deborah Laufer is a disabled woman who checks hotel websites to see if they provide accessibility information required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She sued Acheson Hotels after discovering one of their hotel websites failed to provide accessibility information. The district court dismissed her case since she did not plan to visit the hotel. Therefore, she would suffer no injury from the hotel’s lack of accessibility information. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the district court’s decision determining that a lack of intent to visit the hotel did not excuse Laufer from injury. The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case and rule on it. The Court unanimously voted to vacate the case. The Court found the case to be moot which means it has lost its relevance which no longer neces...
Read more