Background
Halil Demir, a naturalized U.S. citizen and executive director of the Zakat Foundation of America, alleged that federal officials had subjected him to extended airport screening since 2016. Based on that screening, a third-party disclosure, and the government’s responses to his redress requests, Demir believed he had been placed on the FBI-administered Terrorist Watchlist and its Selectee List, which may trigger enhanced screening.
After filing five inquiries through the Department of Homeland Security’s Traveler Redress Inquiry Program, or DHS TRIP, Demir received responses that did not confirm or deny his watchlist status. He sued federal officials under the Fifth Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act, challenging both his initial and continued inclusion on the watchlists and the adequacy of DHS TRIP. The district court dismissed the entire complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, reasoning that 49 U.S.C. § 46110 required Demir to bring his claims directly in a federal court of appeals.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of Demir’s claims challenging his placement and continued presence on the Terrorist Watchlist and Selectee List. Section 46110 gives courts of appeals direct-review jurisdiction over orders of the Transportation Security Administration, but the FBI-administered Threat Screening Center—not TSA—controls those lists. Because an appellate court reviewing a TSA order could not direct the Threat Screening Center to remove Demir, his watchlist claims belong in district court in the first instance.
The court affirmed dismissal of Demir’s separate challenge to DHS TRIP. Applying circuit precedent that broadly defines an “order” under § 46110 to include agency action reviewable on an administrative record, the court held that the TSA-created redress program falls within the statute. Demir therefore must initiate any challenge to DHS TRIP in a court of appeals. The court did not decide the merits of any constitutional or APA claim.
Key Takeaways
- Challenges to placement or continued inclusion on the Terrorist Watchlist and Selectee List may begin in district court because the Threat Screening Center, not TSA, controls those lists.
- A challenge to DHS TRIP itself must be filed directly in a federal court of appeals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110.
- The ruling divides Demir’s related claims between two courts and leaves their substantive merits unresolved.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies the jurisdictional route for travelers contesting federal watchlist consequences. The proper forum turns on which agency controls the challenged action: district courts may hear challenges to Threat Screening Center watchlist decisions, while courts of appeals directly review TSA’s redress procedures.
In a concurrence joined by the full panel, Judge SCUDDER questioned whether precedent correctly treats regulations as “orders” under § 46110. Although the panel followed that precedent, the concurrence urged reconsideration by the Supreme Court or the courts of appeals based on the statutory text and the Administrative Procedure Act’s distinction between orders and rules.