Latif v. Holder ruling holds DHS no-fly list redress process constitutionally inadequate
On June 30, 2010, the ACLU filed Latif v. Holder in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon on behalf of 15 American Muslim plaintiffs — including U.S. Marine veteran Ayman Latif — who had been denied boarding on flights and were unable to clear their status through the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP). The Ninth Circuit (686 F.3d 1122) ruled in 2012 that the no-fly list significantly burdened liberty and triggered due-process protections. In 2014, U.S. District Judge Anna Brown held that the existing TRIP process was constitutionally inadequate; the government subsequently revised its procedures.
Dates: Suit filed June 30, 2010; Ninth Circuit reversal July 26, 2012; district court ruling on TRIP inadequacy 2014; case closed December 16, 2019. Parties: 15 plaintiffs including Ayman Latif (U.S. Marine veteran), Imam Mohamed Kariye, Raymond Knaeble, Amir Meshal; ACLU; Department of Homeland Security; Federal Bureau of Investigation; U.S. District Judge Anna Brown. What happened: Plaintiffs were denied boarding on international flights — several stranded overseas, unable to return home — without being told why they were listed. The DHS TRIP process provided only generic responses. The Ninth Circuit ruled the courts had jurisdiction and that the no-fly list significantly burdened liberty interests. Judge Brown later held TRIP was constitutionally deficient because it did not provide meaningful notice or an opportunity to contest the listing. Government's stated reasons: Not disclosed to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' allegations: Fifth Amendment due process violations; targeting based on Muslim identity, mosque association, and travel to Muslim-majority countries. No plaintiff was charged with any terrorism-related offense. Outcome: Court ordered the government to provide meaningful notice of reasons for listing and a genuine opportunity to respond; TSA/DHS modified TRIP procedures. No money damages awarded.