Saad Bin Khalid, a U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent, sued to challenge both his placement on the federal government's terrorist watchlist and the No Fly List after being denied boarding on an Emirates flight from Pakistan in 2019. Following administrative redress through the Transportation Security Administration's process, Khalid learned he was on both lists and filed suit in federal district court challenging the designations as violations of due process, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Khalid's terrorist watchlist claims, ruling that federal jurisdiction over watchlist and No Fly List challenges creates an irreconcilable conflict. As Henderson wrote for the court, 'Any remedy that removes Khalid from the Terrorist Watchlist would violate the TSA Final Order affirming Khalid's No Fly List designation and thereby set it aside, something only the circuit court may do under Section 46110.' The court noted that the No Fly List standard incorporates the broader terrorist watchlist standard, making the two designations legally interdependent.
Henderson delivered some of the strongest language in rejecting Khalid's attempt to challenge both lists simultaneously: 'The district court's inability to redress Khalid's injuries at this time does not allow for a forced decoupling of the No Fly List from the Terrorist Watchlist.' The court emphasized that while Khalid faced what appeared to be legal limbo, he 'holds the key to free himself' by following the correct procedural sequence.
The complex procedural history revealed the byzantine nature of the watchlist system. The Threat Screening Center, administered by the FBI, maintains the terrorist watchlist of over one million names, while TSA oversees a separate redress process for No Fly List challenges. After Khalid's 2019 flight denial, he pursued the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program, during which TSA Administrator David Pekoske issued a final order in June 2022 maintaining Khalid on the No Fly List because 'he is an individual who represents a threat of engaging in or conducting a violent act of terrorism and who is operationally capable of doing so.'
The majority rejected Khalid's argument that requiring sequential rather than simultaneous challenges would 'insulate the watchlist from challenge.' Henderson wrote that review of terrorist watchlist claims 'is only temporarily unavailable rather than completely precluded,' noting that Khalid could seek reconsideration upon any future travel impediment or wait for the TSC's regular biannual reviews of U.S. citizen listings. The court also dismissed the government's argument that watchlist challenges should be heard in circuit court, finding that Section 46110's exclusive jurisdiction 'begins and ends, as relevant, with the TSA.'
Circuit Judge Pillard dissented sharply, arguing that the majority's interpretation creates an unprecedented restriction on district court jurisdiction. 'The majority reads section 46110 to strip the district court of more jurisdiction than it confers on this court,' Pillard wrote, warning that the decision 'places our circuit in tension with other courts interpreting section 46110.' She argued that a district court order removing Khalid from the terrorist watchlist would merely moot the TSA order through 'ordinary chances of mootness,' not improperly set it aside.
Pillard emphasized the artificial nature of the jurisdictional conflict, noting that 'the Center, not TSA, is the nerve center of the watchlisting operation' and that the TSC 'makes all watchlisting and No Fly listing decisions in the first instance.' She concluded that the majority's decision temporarily forecloses review but noted that 'once the Center reviews Khalid's placement, as it must,' he can immediately bring a single suit in district court challenging both renewed placements.
The ruling highlights ongoing tensions in the post-9/11 security apparatus, where multiple agencies share overlapping authority over terrorist screening. Legal experts note the decision could impact how individuals challenge their placement on various government watchlists, potentially requiring costly sequential litigation across multiple forums to obtain complete relief.