Khalid, a U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent, was first subjected to enhanced screening in 2012 at age 16 while attempting to board a flight from Pakistan to the United States. FBI agents subsequently questioned him about his activities and contacts in Pakistan during that period.
In 2019, Khalid was again prohibited from boarding a U.S.-bound flight and instructed to file a redress claim through the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program. While his administrative appeal was pending, he filed suit in federal district court challenging his placement on the list.
The TSA Administrator determined in 2022 that Khalid should remain barred from commercial flights, citing concerns about his association with a known terrorist organization and his candor during the 2012 FBI interview. The government described Khalid as "an individual who represents a threat of engaging in or conducting a violent act of terrorism and [is] operationally capable of doing so."
Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Nina Pillard wrote that the substantive due process claim was foreclosed by binding precedent. The court explained that while Americans "enjoy[] 'the right to travel,'" that does not imply "a fundamental right to travel by airplane."
Pillard noted that Khalid "may continue to travel to, from, and inside of the United States by means other than airplanes," which defeated his substantive due process argument. The court emphasized that protecting national security "is a government interest of the highest order."
The court also dismissed Khalid's procedural due process arguments, stating that "alternatives to the No Fly List cannot be 100 percent effective against all potential threat[s]." Pillard wrote that the government's security concerns "outweigh [his] individual travel preferences."
Khalid's claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was dismissed for lack of standing. The court held that his assertion that the No Fly List burdens his ability to perform the Islamic pilgrimage of Hajj was too speculative, as he currently resides in Pakistan and had no concrete plans to travel to Saudi Arabia via U.S. airspace.
The court rejected Khalid's argument that the TSA Administrator's decision was arbitrary and capricious. After reviewing both public and classified portions of the administrative record, Pillard concluded that "the TSA Administrator acted with adequate justification when he retained Khalid on the No Fly List."
The ruling affirmed the broad deference courts give to national security determinations and the limited procedural protections available to those challenging their placement on government watch lists.