Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 29 Sep 2023

Individuals are sometimes removed from the No Fly List during ongoing litigation about their placement on that list. The Fourth and Sixth Circuits have held that an individual's removal from the No Fly List moots a case when the government represents that the individual will not be placed back on the list based on currently available information. In conflict with those decisions, the Ninth Circuit held in this case that respondent's claims were not moot even though he was removed from the No Fly List in 2016 and the government provided a sworn declaration stating that he "will not be placed on the No Fly List in the future based on the currently available information." The question presented is whether respondent's claims challenging his placement on the No Fly List are moot.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case involves Yonas Fikre, who sued the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) after being placed on a no-fly list. Fikre alleged that his inclusion was retaliatory due to his refusal to become an informant for the FBI and claimed it violated his constitutional rights. The central legal question revolved around whether sovereign immunity barred claims against federal officials in their official capacities under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Supreme Court ruled that RFRA does not waive sovereign immunity for monetary damages against federal agencies or officials acting in their official capacity. This decision effectively limited individuals' ability to seek financial compensation from government entities when alleging religious freedom violations under RFRA.