1
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTEASTERNDISTRICTOFVIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIADIVISIONANASELHADY; )OSAMAHUSSEINAHMED; ) CaseNo.AHMADIBRAHIMALHALABI; ) Hon.MICHAELEDMUNDCOLEMAN; )WAELHAKMEH; )MURATFRLJUCKIC; )ADNANKHALILSHAOUT; ) COMPLAINTFORINJUNCTIVESALEEMALI; ) ANDDECLARATORYRELIEFSHAHIRANWAR; )SAMIRANWAR; )JOHNDOENO.1; )JOHNDOENO.2;and, )JOHNDOENO.3; ) ) Plaintiffs, ) )v. ) )CHRISTOPHERM.PIEHOTA,Directorofthe )TerroristScreeningCenter;inhisofficial )capacity; ) )STEVENMABEUS,PrincipalDeputy )DirectoroftheTerroristScreeningCenter; )inhisofficialcapacity; ) )G.CLAYTONGRIGG,DeputyDirectorof )OperationsoftheTerroristScreening )Center;inhisofficialcapacity; ) )JAMESG.KENNEDY,Director,Transportation )SecurityRedress(OTSR),Transportation )SecurityAdministration(TSA),UnitedStates )DepartmentofHomelandSecurity(DHS),and )DirectoroftheDHSTravelerRedressInquiry )Program(DHSTRIP);inhisofficialcapacity; ) )MATTHEWG.OLSEN,Directorofthe ) NationalCounterterrorismCenter,in )hisofficialcapacity; ) ) Defendants. )
2
COMPLAINTFORINJUNCTIVEANDDECLARATORYRELIEF
Plaintiffs, Anas Elhady, Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi,
Michael Edmund Coleman, Wael Hakmeh, Murat Frljuckic, Adnan Khalil Shaout,
SaleemAli,ShahirAnwar,SamirAnwar,JohnDoeNo.1,JohnDoeNo.2,andJohnDoe
No.3forthemselvesandonbehalfofallotherssimilarlysituated,throughtheirattorneys,
Council on American‐Islamic Relations, Michigan (“CAIR‐MI”), The Law Office of Gadeir
Abbas,andAkeelandValentine,PLC,stateasfollows:
Introduction
1. Ourfederalgovernmentisimposinganinjusticeofhistoricproportionsupon
theAmericanswhohavefiledthisaction,aswellasthousandsofotherAmericans.Through
extra‐judicial and secretmeans, the federal government is ensnaring individuals into an
invisiblewebofconsequencesthatareimposedindefinitelyandwithoutrecourseasaresult
of the shockingly large federal watch list that now include hundreds of thousands of
individuals.
2. Indeed,many Americans, includingchildren,enduponthesesecret federal
watchlist–whichtheDefendantshavenamedtheTerroristScreeningDatabase(“TSDB”)–
basedonmereguesses,hunches,andconjectureandevensimplybasedonmattersofrace,
ethnicity,nationalorigin,religionortheexerciseoftheirconstitutionalrights.
3. These consequences include the inability to fly on airplanes, to go through
securitywithouthavingallscreenersreceiveamessagefortheremainderofalistee’slife
that she is a "known or suspected terrorist," to obtain licenses, to exercise their Second
Amendmentrighttoownafirearm,andtobefreefromtheunimaginableindignityandreal‐
life danger of having their own government communicate to hundreds of thousands of
3
federalagents,privatecontractors,businesses, stateand localpolice, thecaptainsof sea‐
faringvessels,andforeigngovernmentsallacrosstheworldthattheyareaviolentmenace.
4. Andunfortunately,thefederalgovernmenthasdesigneditsfederalwatchlist
to be accountability‐free. Persons placed on the federal watch list have no means of
removing themselves or challenging the basis for their inclusion. Indeed, people on the
federalwatch listsonly learnoftheirplacementwhentheyfeel thewebofconsequences
burdeningtheirlivesandaspirations,andtheyneverlearnwhy.
5. Media accounts have made clear that the secret federal watch list is the
productofbigotryandmisguided,counterproductivezeal.Americansaredumpedontothe
watch list without being charged, convicted, or in some stomach‐churning cases, even
subjecttoanongoinginvestigation.
6. Instead, two recently leaked government documents and a governmental
report,whichincludetheMarch2013WatchlistingGuidance(Exhibit2),theDirectorateof
TerroristIdentities(DTI):StrategicAccomplishments2013(Exhibit3),andtheDepartment
of Justice's March 2014 Audit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Management of
TerroristWatchlist(Exhibit4)revealthatthecarethefederalgovernmenttakesincreating
its federal watch list is void of proper processing, which in turn results in life‐altering
consequencesthatflowfromtheseillegalactions.
7. Infact,uponinformationandbelief,Dearborn,acityoflessthan100,000and
aplaceArabAmericansandMuslimAmericanshavecalledhomeforgenerations,contains
the second highest concentration of Americans on the federal government's watch list.
Moreover,therehavebeenmorethan1.5millionnominationstothefederalwatchlistsince
4
2009andthat,in2013forexample,theTerroristScreeningCenterconverted98.96percent
ofthosenominationsintowatchlistplacements.
8. Uponinformationandbelief,evidencealsoshowsthatthefederalgovernment
uses guilt‐by‐association presumptions to place family members and friends of listed
personsonthewatchlist.
9. Moreover,traveltoMuslimmajoritycountries—travelthatAmericanMuslims
areverylikelytoengagein—isalsoabasisforwatchlistplacement.
10. In 2009, the federal governmentmade 227,932 nominations to its federal
watchlist.In2013,thatnumbermorethandoubledatanalarminganddangerousrateto
468,749.
11. Recently,afederalcourtjudgeobservedinGuletMohamedv.EricR.Holder,Jr.,
etal.(UnitedStatesDistrictCourt,EasternDistrictofVirginia,CaseNo.11‐cv‐00050(2011)),
that“[a]showingofpastorongoingunlawfulconductdoesnotseemtoberequired,…But
the Court has little, if any, ability to articulate what information is viewed by TSC as
sufficiently‘derogatory’beyondthelabelsithasprovidedtheCourt.Insum,theNoFlyList
assumes that there are some American citizens who are simply too dangerous to be
permitted to fly, nomatter the level of pre‐flight screening or on‐flight surveillance and
restraint, even though those citizens cannot be legally arrested, detained, or otherwise
restrictedintheirmovementsorconduct.”SeeUnitedStatesDistrictCourt,EasternDistrict
ofVirginia,CaseNo.11‐cv‐00050(2011);Dkt.70at19;attachedasMemorandumOpinion
(Exhibit1).
12. Moreover,theCourtwentontofindthat“[i]nclusionontheNoFlyListalso
labels an American citizen a disloyal American who is capable of, and disposed toward
5
committing,warcrimes,andonecaneasilyimaginethebroadrangeofconsequencesthat
mightbe visitedupon such aperson if that stigmatizingdesignationwereknownby the
generalpublic…TheprocessofnominationtotheNoFlyListisbasedonasuspectedlevelof
futuredangerousnessthatisnotnecessarilyrelatedtoanyunlawfulconduct.”SeeUnited
StatesDistrictCourt,EasternDistrictofVirginia,CaseNo.11‐cv‐00050(2011);Dkt.70at14,
17;attachedasMemorandumOpinion(Exhibit1).
Parties
13. PlaintiffYaseenKadura isa26yearoldUnitedStatesCitizenandaMuslim
residinginCookCounty,Illinois.Venueisproperbecauseasubstantialpartoftheeventsor
omissionsgivingrisetohisclaimsoccurredwithinthisdistrictwhichiswherethefederal
watchlistiscompiled.
14. PlaintiffOsamaHusseinAhmed isa24yearoldUnitedStatesCitizenanda
MuslimresidinginWayneCounty,Michigan.Venueisproperbecauseasubstantialpartof
theeventsoromissionsgivingrisetohisclaimsoccurredwithinthisdistrictwhichiswhere
thefederalwatchlistiscompiled.
15. Plaintiff Anas Elhady is a 22 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim
residinginWayneCounty,Michigan.Venueisproperbecauseasubstantialpartoftheevents
oromissionsgivingrisetohisclaimsoccurredwithinthisdistrictwhichiswherethefederal
watchlistiscompiled.
16. PlaintiffGuletMohamed isaUnitedStatesCitizenandaMuslimresiding in
Fairfax County, Virginia. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or
omissionsgivingrisetohisclaimsoccurredwithinthisdistrictwhichiswherethefederal
watchlistiscompiled.
6
17. PlaintiffAhmadIbrahimAlHalabiisa37yearoldUnitedStatesCitizenanda
MuslimresidinginWayneCounty,Michigan.Venueisproperbecauseasubstantialpartof
theeventsoromissionsgivingrisetohisclaimsoccurredwithinthisdistrictwhichiswhere
thefederalwatchlistiscompiled.
18. PlaintiffMichaelEdmundColemanisa44yearoldUnitedStatesCitizenanda
MuslimresidinginWayneCounty,Michigan.Venueisproperbecauseasubstantialpartof
theeventsoromissionsgivingrisetohisclaimsoccurredwithinthisdistrictwhichiswhere
thefederalwatchlistiscompiled.
19. PlaintiffWaelHakmeh is a 37 year oldUnited States Citizen and aMuslim
residing inOaklandCounty,Michigan. Venue isproperbecausea substantialpartof the
eventsoromissionsgivingrisetohisclaimsoccurredwithinthisdistrictwhichiswherethe
federalwatchlistiscompiled.
20. Plaintiff Adnan Khalil Shaout is a 55 year old United States Citizen and a
Muslim residing in Jordan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or
omissionsgivingrisetohisclaimsoccurredwithinthisdistrictwhichiswherethefederal
watchlistiscompiled.
21. PlaintiffSaleemAliisa43yearoldUnitedStatesCitizenandaMuslimresiding
inWayneCounty,Michigan. Venue isproperbecausea substantialpartof theeventsor
omissionsgivingrisetohisclaimsoccurredwithinthisdistrictwhichiswherethefederal
watchlistiscompiled.
22. Plaintiff Shahir Anwar is a 36 year oldUnited States Citizen and aMuslim
residing inMacombCounty,Michigan. Venue isproperbecauseasubstantialpartof the
7
eventsoromissionsgivingrisetohisclaimsoccurredwithinthisdistrictwhichiswherethe
federalwatchlistiscompiled.
23. Plaintiff Samir Anwar is a 29 year old United States Citizen and aMuslim
residing inMacombCounty,Michigan. Venue isproperbecauseasubstantialpartof the
eventsoromissionsgivingrisetohisclaimsoccurredwithinthisdistrictwhichiswherethe
federalwatchlistiscompiled.
24. PlaintiffMariamJukakuisa32yearoldUnitedStatesCitizenandaMuslim
residinginAlamedaCounty,California. Venueisproperbecauseasubstantialpartofthe
eventsoromissionsgivingrisetohisclaimsoccurredwithinthisdistrictwhichiswherethe
federalwatchlistiscompiled.
25. PlaintiffMohammadHaydarisa34yearoldUnitedStatesCitizenandaMuslim
residinginAlamedaCounty,California. Venueisproperbecauseasubstantialpartofthe
eventsoromissionsgivingrisetohisclaimsoccurredwithinthisdistrictwhichiswherethe
federalwatchlistiscompiled.
26. Plaintiff JohnDoeNo.1 isa51yearoldUnitedStatesCitizenandaMuslim
residinginWashtenawCounty,Michigan.Venueisproperbecauseasubstantialpartofthe
eventsoromissionsgivingrisetohisclaimsoccurredwithinthisdistrictwhichiswherethe
federalwatchlistiscompiled.
27. Plaintiff JohnDoeNo.2 isa38yearoldUnitedStatesCitizenandaMuslim
residing inOaklandCounty,Michigan. Venue isproperbecausea substantialpartof the
eventsoromissionsgivingrisetohisclaimsoccurredwithinthisdistrictwhichiswherethe
federalwatchlistiscompiled.
8
28. Plaintiff JohnDoeNo.3 isa55yearoldUnitedStatesCitizenandaMuslim
residinginWashtenawCounty,Michigan.Venueisproperbecauseasubstantialpartofthe
eventsoromissionsgivingrisetohisclaimsoccurredwithinthisdistrictwhichiswherethe
federalwatchlistiscompiled.
29. Defendant Christopher M. Piehota is the current Director of the Terrorist
Screening Center (“TSC”). Defendant Piehota was appointed in April, 2013. Defendant
Piehotadevelopsandmaintainsthefederalgovernment’sconsolidatedTerrorismScreening
Database(the“watchlist”),andacceptsnominationsofPlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituated
American citizens made to the federal watch list. Defendant Piehota also oversees the
dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached toPlaintiffs and other similarly situated
Americancitizensof“knownorsuspectedterrorists”tostateandlocalauthorities,foreign
governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea‐faring
vessels,amongotherofficialandprivateentitiesandindividuals.DefendantPiehotaisbeing
suedinhisofficialcapacity,only.
30. Defendant Steven Mabeus is the current Principal Deputy Director of the
Terrorist Screening Center (“TSC”). DefendantMabeuswas appointed inOctober, 2013.
Defendant Mabeus develops and maintains the federal government’s consolidated
TerrorismScreeningDatabase(the“watchlist”),andacceptsnominationsofPlaintiffsand
othersimilarlysituatedAmericancitizensmadetothefederalwatchlist.DefendantMabeus
also oversees the disseminationof the stigmatizing label attached toPlaintiffs and other
similarly situatedAmericancitizensof “knownor suspected terrorists” to stateand local
authorities,foreigngovernments,corporations,privatecontractors,gunsellers,thecaptains
9
ofsea‐faringvessels,amongotherofficialandprivateentitiesandindividuals. Defendant
Mabeusisbeingsuedinhisofficialcapacity,only.
31. DefendantG.ClaytonGriggisthecurrentDeputyDirectorofOperationsofthe
Terrorist Screening Center (“TSC”). Defendant Grigg began serving in September, 2013.
Defendant Grigg developed and maintained the federal government’s consolidated
TerrorismScreeningDatabase(the“watchlist”),andacceptednominationsofPlaintiffsand
othersimilarlysituatedAmericancitizensmadetothefederalwatchlist.DefendantGrigg
also oversaw the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other
similarly situatedAmericancitizensof “knownor suspected terrorists” to stateand local
authorities,foreigngovernments,corporations,privatecontractors,gunsellers,thecaptains
ofsea‐faringvessels,amongotherofficialandprivateentitiesandindividuals. Defendant
Griggisbeingsuedinhisofficialcapacity,only.
32. Defendant James Kennedy is the Director of the Office of Transportation
Security Redress (OTSR), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), United States
DepartmentofHomelandSecurity(DHS).DefendantKennedyalsoservesastheDirectorof
the DHS Traveler Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP). Defendant Kennedy is responsible for
overseeing DHS TRIP, the administrative complaint process to challenge nominations of
PlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituatedAmericancitizensmadetothefederalwatchlist,and
coordinatingwithothergovernmentagencies,includingtheTerrorismScreeningCenter,to
resolvethecomplaint.DefendantKennedyisbeingsuedinhisofficialcapacity,only.
33. Defendant Matthew G. Olsen is Director of the National Counterterrorism
Center (“NCTC”). Defendant Olsen is responsible for Defendant the nominations that
10
resultedintheplacementofPlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituatedAmericancitizensonthe
federalwatchlist.Olsenisbeingsuedinhisofficialcapacity,only.
JurisdictionandVenue
34. Under U.S. Const. Art. III §2, this Court has jurisdiction because the rights
soughttobeprotectedhereinaresecuredbytheUnitedStatesConstitution.Jurisdictionis
properpursuantto28U.S.C.§1331,Bivensv.SixUnknownNamedAgentsofFederalBureau
ofNarcotics, 403U.S.388 (1971),et seq., 5U.S.C. §702,5U.S.C. §706, theUnitedStates
Constitution,andfederalcommonlaw.
35. ThisactionseeksdeclaratoryreliefpursuanttotheDeclaratoryJudgmentAct,
28U.S.C.§§2201‐02,Rules57and65oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,andpursuant
tothegeneral,legal,andequitablepowersofthisCourt.
36. Thisactionalsoseeksdamagespursuantto28U.S.C.§1343(a)(4)and28U.S.C.
§1357.
37. Asubstantialpartoftheunlawfulactsallegedhereinwerecommittedwithin
thejurisdictionoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrictofVirginia.
38. Venue is proper under 42 U.S.C. § 1391(e) as to all Defendants because
DefendantsareofficersoremployeesofagenciesoftheUnitedStatessuedintheirindividual
capacities and because this judicial district is where a substantial part of the events or
omissionsgivingrisetotheclaimsoccurred.
11
FactualBackground
TheFederalGovernment’sTerroristWatchList
39. InSeptember,2003,AttorneyGeneralJohnAshcroftestablishedtheTerrorist
ScreeningCenter(“TSC”)toconsolidatethegovernment’sapproachtoterrorismscreening.
TheTSC,whichisadministeredbytheFBI,developsandmaintainsthefederalgovernment’s
consolidatedTerrorismScreeningDatabase(the“watchlist”).TSC’sconsolidatedwatchlist
is the federal government’s master repository for suspected international and domestic
terroristrecordsusedforwatchlistrelatedscreening.
40. Thewatchlisthastwoprimarycomponents:theSelecteeListandtheNo‐Fly
List.PersonsontheSelecteeList,includingmanyofPlaintiffs,aresystematicallysubjectto
extrascreeningatairportsandlandbordercrossings,andoftenfind“SSSS”ontheirboarding
passesprintedbyairlineemployeeswhich ismarked to indicateapassenger’swatch list
status to airline employees and screeners. Persons on the No‐Fly List, including the
remainder of Plaintiffs, are prevented fromboarding flights that fly into, out of, or even
throughUnitedStatesairspace.
41. TSCdisseminates records from its terroristwatch list toothergovernment
agencies that in turn use those records to identify suspected terrorists. For example,
applicableTSCrecordsareprovidedtoTSAforusebyairlinesinpre‐screeningpassengers
andtoCBPforuseinscreeningtravelersenteringtheUnitedStatesbyland.
42. Uponinformationandbelief,TSCdisseminatedtherecordsofPlaintiffsfrom
itsterroristwatchlisttoothergovernmentagencies,includingtheTSAforusebyairlinesin
pre‐screeningPlaintiffs, andCBP foruse in screeningPlaintiffsuponentering theUnited
States.
12
43. Uponinformationandbelief,Defendantsdisseminatedtherecordspertaining
toPlaintiffsfromitsterroristwatchlisttoforeigngovernmentswiththepurposeandhope
that those foreign governments will constrain the movement of the Plaintiffs in some
manner.
44. Uponinformationandbelief,Defendants’intentionindisseminatingwatchlist
records,includingthoseofPlaintiffsandsimilarlysituatedAmericancitizens,aswidelyas
possibleistoconstrainPlaintiffs’movements,notonlywithintheUnitedStates,butabroad
aswell.Forexample,somecountriesdetainindividualslistedonthefederalwatchlistwho
enter theirborders, question those individuals at thebehestofUnitedStatesofficials, or
altogetherpreventthoseindividualsfromevenenteringthosecountries.
45. Thus, while the TSC maintains and controls the database of suspected
terrorists,itisthefront‐lineagenciesliketheTSAthatcarryoutthescreeningfunction.In
thecontextofairtravel,whenindividualsmakeairlinereservationsandcheckinatairports,
the front‐line screening agency, like TSA and CBP, conducts a name‐based search of the
individual,includingeachofthePlaintiffs,todeterminewhetherheorsheisonawatchlist.
46. Whileagenciesthroughoutthefederalgovernmentutilizethefederalwatch
list to conduct screening, listed persons are subject to a comprehensive portfolio of
consequencesthatcoverlargeaspectsoftheirlives.
47. Indeed, the federal government disseminates its federal watch list to both
governmentauthoritiesandprivatecorporationsandindividualswiththepurposeandhope
that these entities and/or individuals will impose consequences on those individuals
Defendantshavelisted.
13
48. Upon information and belief, the status of Plaintiffs and similarly situated
Americancitizensasknownorsuspectedterroristsonthefederalwatchlistdiminishesand
evenimperilstheirabilitytoaccessthefinancialsystem.
49. Bankshaveclosedthebankaccountsofindividualslistedonthefederalwatch
list and financial companieshavedeclined toallowsome listed individuals tomakewire
transfers.
50. Moreover, upon information and belief, the citizenship and green card
applicationsofPlaintiffsandsimilarlysituatedAmericancitizensaredelayed indefinitely
due toan “FBInamecheck”andnotadjudicated, therebydenyingPlaintiffsandsimilarly
situatedAmericancitizensof therights the flow fromcitizenship, including theability to
travel freely as a United States citizen and to sponsor for lawful permanent residency
immediaterelativeslivingabroad.
51. Amongtheentitiesandindividualsthatthefederalgovernmentdisseminates
its federal watch list are state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations,
privatecontractors,gunsellers,thecaptainsofsea‐faringvessels,amongothers.
52. Upon information and belief, because the names of Plaintiffs and similarly
situated American citizens are included on the federal watch list, their names were
disseminated to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private
contractors,thecaptainsofsea‐faringvessels,amongotherofficialandprivateentitiesand
individuals.
53. Becausethefederalgovernmentdisseminatesitsfederalwatchlisttoforeign
governments, listedpersons, includingPlaintiffsandsimilarlysituatedAmericancitizens,
areoftennotallowedtoenterothernations.ThisisbecausetheUnitedStatesistellingother
14
nations,withoutanymodicumofdueprocess,thatthousandsofitsowncitizensare“known
orsuspectedterrorists.”
54. Thefederalgovernmentdisseminatesitsfederalwatchlisttostateandlocal
policeofficers,includingPlaintiffs,whichallowsthoseofficerstoquerythenamesofpersons,
ifforexample,thelistedindividualispulledoverforroutinetrafficviolations.
55. Disseminatingthefederalwatchlisttostateandlocalpoliceofficerscreatesa
dangeroussituationinsofarasthefederalwatchlisteffectivelydirectsstateandlocalofficers
totreatthousandsofAmericans,includingPlaintiffs,chargedorconvictedwithnocrimeyet
listedasa“knownorsuspectedterrorist”andasextremelydangerous.
56. Withtheadventanddeploymentofautomaticlicenseplatereadersbypolice
departments across the country, local and state authorities have relied heavily upon a
driver’s watch list status as the basis of a traffic stop, including Plaintiffs and similarly
situatedAmericancitizens.
57. Beingonthefederalwatchlistcanpreventlistedpersons,includingPlaintiffs
andsimilarlysituatedAmericancitizens,frompurchasingagun.Forexample,NewJersey
passed a law in 2013 that banned persons on the federal watch list from owning guns.
Additionally, Connecticut is in the process of setting up an institutional mechanism to
preventindividualswhosenamesareincludedonthefederalwatchlist,suchasPlaintiffs,
frombeingabletobuyaguninthestateofConnecticut.
58. Accordingly,PlaintiffsandsimilarlysituatedAmericancitizensareunableto
purchasegunsinstatesthatbanpersonsonthefederalwatchlistfromowningguns.
59. Because the federal government conducts a security risk assessment that
includesqueryingthefederalwatchlistpriortoissuingalicensetocommercialdriversto
15
transporthazardousmaterials,beingonthefederalwatchlistcanpreventlistedpersons,
including Plaintiffs and similarly situatedAmerican citizens, from obtaining or renewing
theirHazmatlicense.
60. Being on the federal watch list can also prevent listed persons, including
PlaintiffsandsimilarlysituatedAmericancitizens,fromaccompanyingminorsorpassengers
withdisabilitiestotheirgate,fromworkingatanairport,orworkingforanairlineinsofaras
listedpersonsarenotallowedtoenterso‐called“sterileareas”ofairports.
61. Beingonthefederalwatchlistcanalsoresultinthedenialorrevocationofa
FederalAviationAdministration(FAA)licenseofPlaintiffsandsimilarlysituatedAmerican
citizens.
62. AlthoughTSA,CBP,andotheragenciesmayusetherecordsprovidedbythe
TSC,itistheTSCthatmaintainsandcontrolsthedatabaseofsuspectedterrorists.
63. Two government entities, including the Unidentified FBI Agents and
UnidentifiedTSCAgentsemployedbythosegovernmententities,areprimarilyresponsible
for“nominating”individualsforinclusionintheterroristwatchlist—theNCTCandtheFBI.
TheNCTC,whichismanagedbytheOfficeoftheDirectorofNationalIntelligence,relieson
informationfromotherfederaldepartmentsandagencieswhenincludingallegedknownor
suspectedinternationalterroristsinitsTerroristIdentitiesDatamartEnvironment(“TIDE”)
database.TheNCTCreviewsTIDEentriesandrecommendsspecificentriestotheTSCfor
inclusioninthewatchlist.TIDEisthemainsourceofallinternationalterroristinformation
includedinthewatchlist.
64. TheFBI,includingtheUnidentifiedFBIAgents,inturn,nominatestothewatch
list individualswithwhat it characterizes as suspected ties to domestic terrorism. TSC,
16
includingDefendantHealyandUnidentifiedTSCAgents,makesthefinaldecisiononwhether
anominatedindividualmeetstheminimumrequirementsforinclusionintothewatchlistas
aknownorsuspectedterrorist.TSCalsodecideswhichscreeningsystemswillreceivethe
informationaboutthatindividual.
65. DefendantHealyhastestifiedthatinevaluatingwhetheranindividualmeets
the criteria for inclusionon the consolidatedwatch list, theTSCdetermineswhether the
nominated individual is “reasonably suspected” of having possible links to terrorism.
AccordingtotheTSC,“reasonablesuspicionrequiresarticulablefactswhich,takentogether
withrationalinferences,reasonablywarrantthedeterminationthatanindividualisknown
orsuspectedtobeorhasbeenengagedinconductconstituting,inpreparationfor,inandof
orrelatedtoterrorismandterroristactivities.”
66. Defendantshavenotstatedpubliclywhatstandardsorcriteriaareappliedto
determinewhetheranAmericancitizenontheconsolidatedwatchlistwillbeplacedonthe
No‐FlyList,SelecteeList(“SSSS”)orotherlistthatisdistributedtotheTSA,CBPorother
screeningagencies.
67. The standards for watch list inclusion do not evince even internal logic.
Defendantsdefinea“suspectedterrorist”asan“individualwhoisreasonablysuspectedto
be,orhavebeen,engagedinconductconstituting,inpreparationfor,inaidof,orrelatedto
terrorismandterroristactivitiesbasedonarticulableandreasonablesuspicion.”Inother
words, Defendants place American citizens on the federal watch list based upon a
“reasonable suspicion” that they are “reasonably suspected” of nefarious activities. This
“reasonablesuspicion”basedona“reasonablesuspicion”standarddoesnotevencontain
internallogic.
17
68. Thefederalgovernmentutilizesguilt‐by‐associationasabasisforwatchlist
inclusion.Forexample,theimmediaterelativeoflistedpersonscanbelistedwithoutany
derogatory information—other than the bonds of family. Nonetheless, such designation
suggeststhattheimmediaterelativeishimorherselfengagedinnefariousactivities.
69. Being a known associate—a friend, colleague, fellow community member,
etc.—ofalistedindividualcanalsoprovideabasisforwatchlistinclusion.
70. EvenifanAmericancitizenisacquittedofterrorismchargesorthosecharges
areotherwisedismissed,thefederalgovernmentretainsforitselftheauthoritytocontinue
toincludetheminthewatchlist.
71. Forreasonsunknown,Defendantsalsoplacewhattheycall“non‐investigatory
subjects”onthefederalwatchlist,Americancitizensthattheyhavechosennottoinvestigate.
72. Under these practices and standards, the number of records in the
consolidatedwatchlisthasswelled.Over1.5millionnominationstothewatchlisthavebeen
submittedbyfederalagenciessincefiscal2009.
73. In2013,DefendantTSCaccepted98.96percentofallnominationsmade.
74. Becauseoftheseloosestandardsandpractices,thefederalwatchlist’srateof
growthhasincreased.Infiscal2009,therewere227,932nominationstothewatchlist.In
fiscal2013,therewere468,749nominations.
75. Uponinformationandbelief,in2001,therewere16peoplewhothefederal
governmentsystematicallypreventedfromflying.In2013,thatnumberincreasedto47,000.
76. Once anAmerican citizenhasbeenplacedon thewatch list, the individual
remainsonthelistuntiltheagencythatsuppliedtheinitial informationinsupportofthe
nominationdeterminestheindividualshouldberemoved.
18
77. A2007GAOreportfoundthatTSCrejectsonlyapproximatelyonepercentof
allnominationstothewatchlist.1Assuch,thewatchlistisgrowingatarateofapproximately
20,000entriesperyear.
78. AtaMarch10,2010SenateHomelandSecurityCommitteehearing,RusselE.
Travers,DeputyDirectoroftheNationalCounterterrorismCenter,statedthat“[t]heentire
federalgovernmentisleaningveryfarforwardonputtingpeopleonlist,”andthatthewatch
listis“gettingbigger,anditwillgetevenbigger.”
79. ThefederalwatchlistalsodisproportionatelytargetsAmericanMuslims.
80. Defendantshaveutilizedthewatchlist,notasatooltoenhanceaviationand
bordersecurity,butasabludgeontocoerceAmericanMuslimsintobecominginformantsor
forgoingtheexerciseoftheirrights,suchastherighttohaveanattorneypresentduringlaw
enforcementquestioning.
81. Public examplesof thisphenomenonabound. SeeLatifv.Holder,2014U.S.
Dist.LEXIS85450,*19(D.Or.June24,2014)(anFBIagenttoldStevenWashburnthathe
“wouldhelpremoveWashburn'snamefromtheNo‐FlyListifheagreedtospeaktotheFBI”);
Id.at*21‐22(FBIagentstoldIbraheimMashalthat“hisnamewouldberemovedfromthe
No‐Fly List and he would receive compensation if he helped the FBI by serving as an
informant.”):Idat*22‐23(FBIagentsofferedAmirMeshal“theopportunitytoserveasa
government informant in exchange for assistance in removinghisname from theNo‐Fly
List.”). SeealsoFikrev.FBI,2014U.S.Dist. LEXIS73174 (D.Or.May29,2014) (Emirati
officialstoldYonasFikrethathe“couldnottraveltotheUnitedStatesbyairbecauseheison
1 See United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters entitled Terrorist Watch List Screening: Opportunities Exist to Enhance Management Oversight, Reduce Vulnerabilities in Agency Screening Processes, and Expand Use of the List, GAO‐08‐110, October 2007, at 22.
19
theNo‐FlyList”andanFBIagenttoldFikrethat“theFBIcouldtakestepstoremove[him]
fromtheNo‐FlyListifheagreedtobeaninformant.”);Tanveerv.Holder,et.al.,No.13‐cv‐
6951,Dkt.15(April22,2014)(NaveedShinwari “declinedtoactasan informant for the
FederalBureauofInvestigationandtospyon[his]ownAmericanMuslimcommunitiesand
otherinnocentpeople.”).
82. AlmostallpubliclyknowninstancesofAmericansbeingplacedonthewatch
listregardMuslimsorpersonswhocouldbemistakenforMuslims.
83. Additionally,governmentrecordsshowthatDearborn,Michigan—whichis40
percentArab—isdisproportionatelyrepresentedonthefederalwatchlist.Infact,Dearborn
isamongthetopfivecitiesinthecountry,alongsideChicago,Houston,NewYork,andSan
Diego,representedonthefederalwatchlist.
84. Defendants’ 2013WatchlistingGuidancealso indicates that “[t]ravel forno
knownlawfulorlegitimatepurposetoalocusofterroristactivity”canbeabasisforbeing
listed.Whilea“locusofTerroristActivity”isnotdefinedbythedocument,uponinformation
andbelief,itlikelyincludesanyplacewheremanyMuslimsreside.
85. Thefederalwatchlist’sinclusionstandardsaresopermissiveandpliableand
the selectee list's efficacy is at best fleetingly marginal that the inclusion standards
themselvesviolatePlaintiffsproceduralandsubstantivedueprocess.
86. Thefederalwatchlistdiminishes,ratherthanenhances,ournationalsecurity
becausethenumberofinnocentAmericansonthelistisbecomingsovoluminousthatthe
purposeofhavingalistissignificantlyunderminedasallarebeingtreatedasthesame.
87. Theconsequencesofbeingonthefederalwatchlistaremetedoutpublically.
Membersofthepubliccanwitnesstheextrascreeningtowhichindividualsonthefederal
20
watchlistaresubject,includingbeingpulledoutoftheircaratgunpoint,beingorderedto
leave one's vehiclewith one's hands held above his/her head, among other stigmatizing
measures.
88. Inpractice,frontlinescreenersdisclosethestatusofindividualsonthefederal
watchlisttostateandlocalauthorities,aswellasairlineemployees.
89. Theoperationofthefederalwatchlistenlistsaircarrierstoassistthefederal
governmentintrackingthepassengeronthefederalwatchlist.
90. DefendantsapplythefederalwatchlistagainstMuslimAmericansinamanner
thatisdifferentfromhowitusesitslistagainstpeopleofotherfaithbackgrounds.
91. Defendantsuseimpermissibleandinaccuratereligiousprofilesincompiling
thefederalwatchlist.
92. Defendants who contributed to the placement of Plaintiffs and similarly
situatedAmericancitizensonthefederalwatchlistknewthattheiractionsviolatedclearly
establishedfederallaw.
93. Defendants knew at the time they acted unlawfully that Supreme Court
precedent required that,whenever a citizen is deprived of a liberty interest, the federal
governmentmustatleastprovidethedeprivedwithsomeformofnoticethatadeprivation
occurred.
InadequacyoftheDHSTravelerRedressInquiryProgramProcess
94. The government entities and individuals involved in the creation,
maintenance, support, modification and enforcement of the federal watch list, including
Defendants,havenotprovidedtravelers,includingPlaintiffsandsimilarlysituatedAmerican
21
citizens,witha fairandeffectivemechanism throughwhich theycanchallenge theTSC’s
decisiontoplacethemontheterroristwatchlist.
95. An individual, including Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens,
whohasbeenpreventedorhinderedfromtravelbybeingplacedonthefederalwatchlist
has no clear avenue for redress, because no single government entity is responsible for
removinganindividualfromthelist.TheTSC,whichisadministeredbytheFBI,doesnot
acceptredressinquiriesfromthepublic,nordoesitdirectlyprovidefinaldispositionletters
to individuals on the selectee list, including Plaintiffs on the selectee list and similarly
situatedAmericancitizens,whohavesubmittedredressinquiries.TheNCTCwhichmanages
theTIDElistdoesnotacceptredressinquiriesfromthegeneralpublic.
96. Individualswhoseekredressafterhavingbeenincludedintheterroristwatch
list must submit an inquiry through the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (“DHS
TRIP”).DHSTRIPprovidesindividualswitha“RedressControlNumber.”
97. DHSTRIPistheonlyredress“process”availabletoindividualsincludedonthe
terroristwatchlist.
98. DHSTRIPsubmitstravelercomplaintstotheTSC,whichdetermineswhether
anyactionshouldbetaken. TheTSChasnotprovidedanypubliclyavailableinformation
abouthowitmakesthatdecision. TheTSC is the finalarbiterofwhetheran individual’s
nameisretainedonorremovedfromthewatchlist,includingthoseofPlaintiffsandsimilarly
situatedAmericancitizens.
99. TheTSCmakesadeterminationregardingaparticularindividual’sstatuson
thewatchlist,includingPlaintiffsandsimilarlysituatedAmericancitizens,andDHSinturn
respondstotheindividualwithastandardformletterthatneitherconfirmsnordeniesthe
22
existenceofanyterroristwatchlistrecordsrelatingtotheindividual.Thelettersdonotset
forthanybasisforinclusioninaterroristwatchlist,donotstatewhetherthegovernment
hasresolvedthecomplaintatissue.
100. ThegovernmentdoesnotprovideanAmericancitizenwithanyopportunity
toconfront,ortorebut,thegroundsforhisorherpossibleinclusiononthewatchlist.As
such,DHSTRIPoffersnomeaningfulreviewofthewatchlistdesignationandineffectshields
theTSC’sactionswithrespecttotheindividualnominationsorclassesofnominationsfrom
meaningfulreviewbyanyindependentauthority.
101. Moreover,thegovernment’sowninternalauditsofthesystempointtoserious
flaws.Forexample,aMarch2008DOJOfficeoftheInspectorGeneralreportentitledAudit
oftheU.S.DepartmentofJusticeTerrorismWatchlistNominationProcessesfoundsignificant
problemswiththenominationandremovalprocess.
102. Thus,theonly“process”availabletosuchindividualsistosubmittheirnames
andotheridentifyinginformationtoagovernmententitythathasnoauthoritytoprovide
redressandtohopethatanunspecifiedgovernmentagencycorrectsanerrororchangesits
mind.
103. Asallegedbelow,eachofthePlaintiffsandsimilarlysituatedAmericancitizens
aredesignatedonthewatchlist.
PlaintiffAnasElhady
104. Mr.AnasElhadyisroutinelyreferredtosecondaryinspection,handcuffedand
detainedbyCBPat landbordercrossingswhenheattemptstore‐entertheUnitedStates
fromCanada.
23
105. CBPofficersroutinelysubjecthimtoaprolongeddetentionandquestioning
forapproximatelyfourtotwelvehourseachtime.
106. Moreover, he is routinely asked questions about his religious beliefs and
practices,whatsectofIslamhebelongsto,whatmosquehepraysin,amongotherthings.
107. Moreover,everytimeMr.Elhadytravelsbyair,hisboardingpassisstamped
withthe“SSSS”designation,indicatingthathehasbeendesignatedasa“knownorsuspected
terrorist.”
108. Mr.ElhadyfiledaredressrequestthroughDHSTRIP.
109. OnMay11,2015,Mr.Elhadyreceivedaletterasdescribedinparagraph99
aboveandwasassignedaRedressControlNumber.
110. Shortly afterwards,Mr.Elhadywasagain referred to secondary inspection,
handcuffedanddetainedbyCBPattheborderstopattheAmbassadorBridgePortofEntry
inDetroit,Michigan,forapproximatelysixhourswhenheattemptedtore‐entertheUnited
StatesafterabriefvacationinCanada.
111. AftertheCBPofficersconfiscatedMr.Elhady’sjacketandshoes,theydetained
himinasmall,freezingcoldholdingcellwithbrightlights.
112. Afterseveralhours,Mr.Elhadyknockedonthedoorrepeatedlyandbegged
forsomeonetohelphim.Hispleasforhelpwereignored.
113. Afterwards,hisbodybeganshakinguncontrollablyandhefellunconscious.
114. CBPofficersfinallyopenedthedoorandwokehimup.
115. Mr.Elhadyrepeatedlybeggedforanambulancetotakehimtothehospital,but
hispleaswereignored.
24
116. Finally,Mr.Elhadywastakentoanambulance,onlytobehandcuffedtothe
bedinsidetheambulance.
117. Mr.Elhadywastakentoalocalhospital,wherehewashandcuffedtoachair
inthewaitingroomofthehospital.
118. After being attended to by nurses and physicians, and prescribed the
medicationthatheneeded,Mr.Elhadywasagainhandcuffedtoachairinsideavehicleand
transportedbacktotheAmbassadorBridge.
119. OnDecember2,2015,FBISpecialAgentJoshAllencontactedMr.Elhadyand
informedhimthathisphonewasbeingtappedandthatallhiscallswerebeinglistenedtoby
theFBI.
120. Mr. Elhady’s boarding pass continues to be stamped with the “SSSS”
designationwhen travels by air, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or
suspectedterrorist.”
121. Additionally,everytimeMr.Elhadytravelsbyair,heisreferredtosecondary
inspectionandsubjectedtoprolongedsearchesandquestioning.
122. AtnotimewasMr.Elhadygivennoticeofthefactualbasisforhisplacement
onthefederalwatchlist,andatnotimewasheofferedameaningfulopportunitytocontest
hisdesignation.
123. Moreover, atno timewasMr.Elhadygivennoticeof thedeprivationofhis
libertyinterestsorviolationofhisconstitutionalrights.
124. Uponinformationandbelief,Mr.Elhadyremainsonthefederalwatchlist.
25
125. Uponinformationandbelief,Mr.Elhady’snominationtothefederalwatchlist
was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin,
religiousaffiliation,orFirstAmendmentprotectedactivities).
PlaintiffOsamaHusseinAhmed
126. On or about February orMarch, 2011,Mr. Osama Ahmed appeared at the
DetroitMetropolitanAirport,uponreturninghomeonacommercialflightfromYemen.
127. Mr. Ahmed was escorted from the gate to an interrogation room and
interrogatedbyFBIagentsforapproximatelysixtosevenhours.
128. The FBI agents confiscated his USB drive that he hadwith him, and upon
informationandbelief,downloadedtheinformationfromhisUSBdrive.
129. Severaldayslater,FBIagents,includingSpecialAgentJoelKelso,appearedat
Mr.Ahmed’shome.
130. TheFBIagentstookhimtoanearbybd’sMongolianGrill,andattemptedto
recruitMr.AhmedintobecominganinformantinYemen.
131. TheFBIagentstriedtoenticeMr.Ahmed,whowasonly18yearsoldatthe
time, intobecomingan informantbyoffering to teachhimhowtoskydive,amongother
things.
132. SpecialAgentKelsoinformedMr.AhmedthathisnamewasontheNo‐FlyList,
andthatifhecooperated,hisnamewouldberemovedfromthelist.
133. OnApril29,2011,Mr.AhmedfiledacomplaintthroughDHSTRIP.
134. OnMay2,2011,Mr.Ahmed’sattorneyspokewithSpecialAgentKelsowho
informedheratthattimethattherewasnobasistoincludeMr.AhmedontheNo‐FlyList,
andthathewouldmakearrangementstoremovehisnamefromthefederalwatchlist.
26
135. OnMay10,2011,SpecialAgentKelsoinformedhisattorneythatMr.Ahmed’s
namewasremovedfromtheNo‐FlyList.
136. AsaresultofbeingaddedtotheNo‐FlyList,Mr.Ahmedwasunabletoapply
foremploymentattheairportwherehisbrotherwasemployedatthetimeuntilhisname
wasremovedfromtheNo‐FlyList.
137. Uponinformationandbelief,Mr.Ahmed’snamewasaddedtotheNo‐FlyList
inordertoleveragehisstatusonthefederalwatchlisttoputpressureonMr.Ahmedtoact
asaninformantinYemen.
138. Onorabout2015,Mr.Ahmed’sboardingpassesarenowstampedwith the
“SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been once again designated as a “known or
suspectedterrorist.”
139. AtnotimewasMr.Ahmedgivennoticeofthefactualbasisforhisplacement
onthefederalwatchlist,andatnotimewasheofferedameaningfulopportunitytocontest
hisdesignation.
140. Moreover,atno timewasMr.Ahmedgivennoticeof thedeprivationofhis
libertyinterestsorviolationofhisconstitutionalrights.
141. Uponinformationandbelief,Mr.Ahmedremainsonthefederalwatchlist.
142. Uponinformationandbelief,Mr.Ahmed’snominationtothefederalwatchlist
was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin,
religiousaffiliation,orFirstAmendmentprotectedactivities).
27
PlaintiffAhmadIbrahimAlHalabi
143. EverytimeMr.AhmadAlHalabitravelsbyair,since2004,hisboardingpass
isstampedwiththe“SSSS”designation,indicatingthathehasbeendesignatedasa“known
orsuspectedterrorist.”
144. Moreover,Mr.AlHalabi is frequentlyunable toboardhis flightsuntilhe is
“cleared”byDHStoboardtheflight,aprocessthatoftentimestakeshours.
145. Moreover, Mr. Al Halabi has missed his flights and incurred additional
expenses on multiple occasions after having been subjected to prolonged searches and
interrogations.
146. On June 25, 2014, Mr. Al Halabi was surrounded by armed CBP officers,
handcuffed in front of his children and detained in a freezing cold holding cell for
approximatelytwotothreehoursandinthewaitingareaforanotherthreetofourhoursat
theAmbassadorBridgeportofentryinDetroit,Michigan,whenheattemptedtore‐enterthe
UnitedStatesafterabriefvacationinCanada.
147. CBPofficersconfiscatedhisphone,anduponinformationandbelief,theCBP
officersdownloadedthedatafromhisphone.
148. Mr.AlHalabino longer travelsbyairnordoeshe travel toCanadaby land
unlessabsolutelynecessaryforbusinesspurposesinordertoavoidbeingsubjectedtothe
abovetreatment.
149. Mr.AlHalabifiledmultipleredressrequeststhroughDHSTRIP.
150. Mr.AlHalabireceivedmultiplelettersasdescribedinparagraph99aboveand
wasassignedmultipleRedressControlNumbers.
28
151. AtnotimewasMr.AlHalabigivennoticeofthefactualbasisforhisplacement
onthefederalwatchlist,andatnotimewasheofferedameaningfulopportunitytocontest
hisdesignation.
152. Moreover,atnotimewasMr.AlHalabigivennoticeofthedeprivationofhis
libertyinterestsorviolationofhisconstitutionalrights.
153. Mr. Al Halabi’s boarding passes continue to be stamped with the “SSSS”
designationeverytimehetravelsbyair.
154. Additionally,everytimeMr.AlHalabitravelsbyair,heisreferredtosecondary
inspectionandsubjectedtoprolongedsearchesandquestioning.
155. Uponinformationandbelief,Mr.AlHalabiremainsonthefederalwatchlist.
156. Uponinformationandbelief,Mr.AlHalabi’snominationtothefederalwatch
listwasmadebasedsolelyuponahunch(baseduponhis race,ethnicity,nationalorigin,
religiousaffiliation,orFirstAmendmentprotectedactivities).
PlaintiffMichaelEdmundColeman
157. On or about May 2, 2015, Mr. Michael Edmund Coleman appeared at the
DetroitMetropolitan Airport, in order to board a commercial flight for his trip to Doha
InternationalAirport.
158. Mr. Coleman was unable to check in online or at a kiosk stationed at the
airport.
159. Heapproachedanairlinerepresentativetobecheckedinmanually,andafter
speakingonthephonewithaDHSrepresentativetoobtainclearancebeforehecouldfly,his
boarding pass was stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been
designatedasa“knownorsuspectedterrorist.”
29
160. During Mr. Coleman’s flight connection at the Philadelphia International
Airport,Mr.Colemanwasunabletoboardhisnextflightuntilhewasonceagain“cleared”by
DHStoboardtheflight.
161. Mr.ColemanfiledaredressrequestthroughDHSTRIP.
162. Asofthedateofthisfiling,Mr.ColemanhasnotreceivedaresponsefromDHS,
norhashebeenassignedaRedressControlNumber.
163. Mr. Coleman’s boarding passes continue to be stamped with the “SSSS”
designationeverytimehetravelsbyair.
164. Additionally,everytimeMr.Colemantravelsbyair,heisreferredtosecondary
inspectionandsubjectedtoprolongedsearches,questioningandchemicaltesting.
165. Mr.Colemanisfrequentlyinterrogatedabouthisreligiousactivities.
166. AtnotimewasMr.Colemangivennoticeofthefactualbasisforhisplacement
onthefederalwatchlist,andatnotimewasheofferedameaningfulopportunitytocontest
hisdesignation.
167. Moreover,atnotimewasMr.Colemangivennoticeofthedeprivationofhis
libertyinterestsorviolationofhisconstitutionalrights.
168. Uponinformationandbelief,Mr.Colemanremainsonthefederalwatchlist.
169. Mr.ColemanlimitstravelsbyairandbylandtoCanadawhennecessaryfor
businesspurposesinordertoavoidbeingsubjectedtotheabovetreatment.
170. Uponinformationandbelief,Mr.Coleman’snominationtothefederalwatch
listwasmadebasedsolelyuponahunch(baseduponhis race,ethnicity,nationalorigin,
religiousaffiliation,orFirstAmendmentprotectedactivities).
30
PlaintiffWaelHakmeh
171. On or about April, 2014, Mr. Wael Hakmeh appeared at Chicago O’Hare
InternationalAirportuponreturningonaflightfromabusinesstripinTurkey.
172. He was referred to secondary screening and subjected to a prolonged
interrogation.
173. Additionally, tothebestofhisrecollection, in June,2014,hisboardingpass
wasstampedwiththe“SSSS”designationforthefirsttime,indicatingthathewasdesignated
asa“knownorsuspectedterrorist.”
174. OnoraboutOctober,2014,Mr.Hakmehappearedtohavebeenremovedfrom
thewatchlist,ashisboardingpassforhisflightwasnotstampedwiththe“SSSS”designation.
175. However,sinceapproximatelyJanuary,2016,Mr.Hakmeh’sboardingpasses
arestampedwiththe“SSSS”designationeverytimehetravelsbyair.
176. Additionally,everytimeMr.Hakmehtravelsbyair,heisreferredtosecondary
inspectionandsubjectedtoprolongedsearchesandquestioning.
177. AtnotimewasMr.Hakmehgivennoticeofthefactualbasisforhisplacement
onthefederalwatchlist,andatnotimewasheofferedameaningfulopportunitytocontest
hisdesignation.
178. Moreover,atnotimewasMr.Hakmehgivennoticeofthedeprivationofhis
libertyinterestsorviolationofhisconstitutionalrights.
179. Uponinformationandbelief,Mr.Hakmehremainsonthefederalwatchlist.
180. Mr.HakmehnolongerconnectsthroughChicagoO’HareInternationalAirport
to DetroitMetropolitan Airportwhen returning home toMichigan from overseas travel.
Rather,Mr.HakmehdrivesfromChicagoO’HareInternationalAirportforapproximatelyfive
31
hourstohishomeinWayneCounty,Michiganeachtimeinordertoavoidbeingsubjectedto
theabovetreatmentatmultipleairportsandriskarrivinglatetohisplaceofemployment.
181. Uponinformationandbelief,Mr.Hakmeh’snominationtothefederalwatch
listwasmadebasedsolelyuponahunch(baseduponhis race,ethnicity,nationalorigin,
religiousaffiliation,orFirstAmendmentprotectedactivities).
PlaintiffMuratFrljuckic
182. Onor aboutOctober, 2012,Mr.Murat Frljuckicwas referred to secondary
inspection,handcuffedanddetainedbyCBPattheborderstopattheBlueWaterBridgePort
ofEntryinPortHuron,Michigan,whenheattemptedtore‐entertheUnitedStatesaftera
briefvacationinCanada.
183. CBP officers subjected him to a prolonged detention and questioning for
approximatelythreetofourhours.
184. Similarly,onoraboutAugust,2014,Mr.Frljuckicwasreferredtosecondary
inspection,handcuffedanddetainedbyCBPattheborderstopattheBlueWaterBridgePort
ofEntryinPortHuron,Michigan,whenheattemptedtore‐entertheUnitedStatesaftera
briefvacationinMontenegro.
185. Moreover,everytimeMr.Frljuckictravelsbyair,sinceapproximatelyMarch
orApril,2012,hisboardingpassisstampedwiththe“SSSS”designation,indicatingthathe
hasbeendesignatedasa“knownorsuspectedterrorist.”
186. Mr.FrljuckicfiledaredressrequestthroughDHSTRIP.
187. Asofthedateofthisfiling,Mr.FrljuckichasnotreceivedaresponsefromDHS,
norhashebeenassignedaRedressControlNumber.
32
188. Mr. Frljuckic’s boarding passes continue to be stamped with the “SSSS”
designationeverytimehetravelsbyair.
189. Additionally,everytimeMr.Frljuckictravelsbyair,heisreferredtosecondary
inspectionandsubjectedtoprolongedsearchesandquestioning.
190. AtnotimewasMr.Frljuckicgivennoticeofthefactualbasisforhisplacement
onthefederalwatchlist,andatnotimewasheofferedameaningfulopportunitytocontest
hisdesignation.
191. Moreover,atnotimewasMr.Frljuckicgivennoticeofthedeprivationofhis
libertyinterestsorviolationofhisconstitutionalrights.
192. Uponinformationandbelief,Mr.Frljuckicremainsonthefederalwatchlist.
193. Mr.FrljuckicnolongertravelsbyairnordoeshetraveltoCanadabylandin
ordertoavoidbeingsubjectedtotheabovetreatment.
194. Uponinformationandbelief,Mr.Frljuckic’snominationtothefederalwatch
listwasmadebasedsolelyuponahunch(baseduponhis race,ethnicity,nationalorigin,
religiousaffiliation,orFirstAmendmentprotectedactivities).
PlaintiffAdnanKhalilShaout
195. EverytimeMr.AdnanShaouttravelsbyair,since2004,hisboardingpassis
stampedwiththe“SSSS”designation,indicatingthathehasbeendesignatedasa“knownor
suspectedterrorist.”
196. Mr.Shaoutisfrequentlyinterrogatedabouthisreligiousbeliefsandaffiliation
withreligiousgroupsduringsecondaryinspections.
197. Moreover, Mr. Shaout is frequently unable to board his flights until he is
“cleared”byDHStoboardtheflight,aprocessthatoftentimestakeshours.
33
198. Moreover,TSAagentsoftenconfiscatehislaptop,anduponinformationand
belief,downloadinformationfromhislaptop.
199. Onorabout,June23,2011,whileMr.Shaoutwassittingintheplanewaiting
for take‐off, despite having been thoroughly screened by TSA, TSA agents removed Mr.
Shaoutfromtheplaneandconductedanotherextensivepatdownandsearchofhispersonal
belongings.
200. TheentireflightwasdelayeduntiltheTSAagentscompletedthissearch.
201. Mr.ShaoutnolongertravelsbyairintheUnitedStatesinordertoavoidbeing
subjectedtotheabovetreatment.
202. Mr.ShaoutfiledaredressrequestthroughDHSTRIP.
203. OnNovember5,2015,Mr.Shaoutreceivedaletterasdescribedinparagraph
99aboveandwasassignedaRedressControlNumber.
204. Mr. Shaout’s boarding pass continues to be stamped with the “SSSS”
designationwhen travels by air, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or
suspectedterrorist.”
205. Additionally,everytimeMr.Shaouttravelsbyair,heisreferredtosecondary
inspectionandsubjectedtoprolongedsearchesandquestioning.
206. AtnotimewasMr.Shaoutgivennoticeofthefactualbasisforhisplacement
onthefederalwatchlist,andatnotimewasheofferedameaningfulopportunitytocontest
hisdesignation.
207. Moreover, atno timewasMr. Shaoutgivennoticeof thedeprivationofhis
libertyinterestsorviolationofhisconstitutionalrights.
208. Uponinformationandbelief,Mr.Shaoutremainsonthefederalwatchlist.
34
209. Uponinformationandbelief,Mr.Shaout’snominationtothefederalwatchlist
was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin,
religiousaffiliation,orFirstAmendmentprotectedactivities).
210. Mr.Shaoutno longertravelsbyair inordertoavoidbeingsubjectedtothe
abovetreatment.
PlaintiffSaleemAli
211. On or about October, 2012, Mr. Saleem Ali was referred to secondary
inspection and detained by CBP at the border stop at the Ambassador Bridge, Detroit,
Michigan,whenheattemptedtore‐entertheUnitedStatesafterabriefvacationinCanada.
212. CBPofficersconfiscatedhistwophones,askedhimforhispasswordstoaccess
thetwophones,anduponinformationandbelief,theCBPofficersdownloadedthedatafrom
hisphones.
213. CBPofficerskepthisphonesanddidnotreturnthemuntilthefollowingday.
214. Moreover,everytimeMr.Alitravelsbyair,hisboardingpassisstampedwith
the “SSSS”designation, indicating thathehasbeendesignatedas a “knownor suspected
terrorist.”
215. Additionally, every timeMr. Ali travels by air, he is referred to secondary
inspectionandsubjectedtoprolongedsearchesandquestioning.
216. Mr.AlifiledaredressrequestthroughDHSTRIP.
217. Mr.Alireceivedaletterasdescribedinparagraph99aboveandwasassigned
aRedressControlNumber.
35
218. AtnotimewasMr.Aligivennoticeofthefactualbasisforhisplacementonthe
federalwatch list,andatno timewasheofferedameaningfulopportunity tocontesthis
designation.
219. Moreover,atnotimewasMr.Aligivennoticeofthedeprivationofhisliberty
interestsorviolationofhisconstitutionalrights.
220. Uponinformationandbelief,Mr.Aliremainsonthefederalwatchlist.
221. Uponinformationandbelief,Mr.Ali’snominationtothefederalwatchlistwas
madebasedsolelyuponahunch(baseduponhisrace,ethnicity,nationalorigin,religious
affiliation,familialstatusorFirstAmendmentprotectedactivities).
PlaintiffShahirAnwar
222. Mr.ShahirAnwaristhebrotherofPlaintiffMr.SamirAnwar.
223. EverytimeMr.Anwartravelsbyair,since2014,hisboardingpassisstamped
withthe“SSSS”designation,indicatingthathehasbeendesignatedasa“knownorsuspected
terrorist.”
224. Additionally,everytimeMr.Anwartravelsbyair,heisreferredtosecondary
inspectionandsubjectedtoprolongedsearchesandquestioning.
225. Mr.AnwarfiledaredressrequestthroughDHSTRIP.
226. OnMarch23,2015,Mr.Anwarreceivedaletterasdescribedinparagraph99
aboveandwasassignedaRedressControlNumber.
227. Mr. Anwar’s boarding passes continue to be stamped with the “SSSS”
designationeverytimehetravelsbyair.
36
228. AtnotimewasMr.Anwargivennoticeofthefactualbasisforhisplacement
onthefederalwatchlist,andatnotimewasheofferedameaningfulopportunitytocontest
hisdesignation.
229. Moreover, at no timewasMr.Anwar givennotice of thedeprivationof his
libertyinterestsorviolationofhisconstitutionalrights.
230. Uponinformationandbelief,Mr.Anwarremainsonthefederalwatchlist.
231. Mr.Anwarno longer travelsbyairnordoeshe travel toCanadaby land in
ordertoavoidbeingsubjectedtotheabovetreatmentorthetreatmentexperiencedbyhis
brother,PlaintiffSamirAnwar,describedbelow.
232. Uponinformationandbelief,Mr.Anwar’snominationtothefederalwatchlist
was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin,
religiousaffiliation,familialorFirstAmendmentprotectedactivities).
PlaintiffSamirAnwar
233. Mr.SamirAnwaristhebrotherofPlaintiffMr.ShahirAnwar.
234. EverytimeMr.Anwartravelsbyair,hisboardingpass isstampedwiththe
“SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected
terrorist.”
235. Mr.AnwarfiledaredressrequestthroughDHSTRIP.
236. OnAugust7,2014,Mr.Anwarreceivedaletterasdescribedinparagraph99
aboveandwasassignedaRedressControlNumber.
237. On or about February 22, 2015, Mr. Anwar was referred to secondary
inspectionanddetainedbyCBPattheborderstopattheBlueWaterBridgePortofEntryin
37
PortHuron,Michigan,whenheattemptedtore‐entertheUnitedStatesafterabrieftripto
Canada.
238. Mr.AnwarhandedaCBPofficertheletterfromDHS,howevertheCBPofficer
responded that the letter does notmean anything and does not have any impact on the
situation.
239. CBPofficersconfiscatedhisphone,askedhimforhispasswordtoaccessthe
phone, and upon information and belief, the CBP officers downloaded the data from his
phone.
240. Moreover, Mr. Anwar was interrogated about his religious beliefs and
religiousaffiliations.
241. Mr. Anwar’s boarding pass continues to be stamped with the “SSSS”
designationwhen travels by air, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or
suspectedterrorist.”
242. Additionally,everytimeMr.Anwartravelsbyair,heisreferredtosecondary
inspectionandsubjectedtoprolongedsearchesandquestioning.
243. AtnotimewasMr.Anwargivennoticeofthefactualbasisforhisplacement
onthefederalwatchlist,andatnotimewasheofferedameaningfulopportunitytocontest
hisdesignation.
244. Moreover, at no timewasMr.Anwar givennotice of thedeprivationof his
libertyinterestsorviolationofhisconstitutionalrights.
245. Uponinformationandbelief,Mr.Anwarremainsonthefederalwatchlist.
38
246. Uponinformationandbelief,Mr.Anwar’snominationtothefederalwatchlist
was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin,
religiousaffiliation,orFirstAmendmentprotectedactivities).
PlaintiffJohnDoeNo.1
247. OnoraboutJanuary,2015,Mr.JohnDoeNo.1’sboardingpassisstampedwith
the “SSSS”designation, indicating thathehasbeendesignatedas a “knownor suspected
terrorist.”
248. Additionally, every time Mr. Doe No. 1 returns to the United States from
internationaltravel,Mr.Doeissubjectedtoprolongeddetentionandquestioning.
249. Suddenly,shortlyafterMr.DoeNo.1wasdesignatedonthefederalwatchlist,
many of his individual and business bank accounts were closed without notice or an
explanationofthereasonswhytheywerebeingclosed,includingbankaccountsatJPMorgan
ChaseBank,TCFBankandPNCBank.
250. Upon information and belief, Unidentified TSC Agents disseminated the
stigmatizinglabelof“knownorsuspectedterrorist”attachedtoMr.DoeNo.1toJPMorgan
ChaseBank,TCFBankandPNCBank,andasaresult,hisbankaccountswereclosedwithout
notice.
251. Mr.DoeNo.1filedaredressrequestthroughDHSTRIP.
252. Asofthedateofthisfiling,Mr.DoeNo.1hasnotreceivedaresponsefrom
DHS,norhashebeenassignedaRedressControlNumber.
253. AtnotimewasMr.DoeNo.1givennoticeofthefactualbasisforhisplacement
onthefederalwatchlist,andatnotimewasheofferedameaningfulopportunitytocontest
hisdesignation.
39
254. Moreover,atnotimewasMr.DoeNo.1givennoticeofthedeprivationofhis
libertyinterestsorviolationofhisconstitutionalrights.
255. Uponinformationandbelief,Mr.DoeNo.1remainsonthefederalwatchlist.
256. Uponinformationandbelief,Mr.Doe’sNo.1nominationtothefederalwatch
listwasmadebasedsolelyuponahunch(baseduponhis race,ethnicity,nationalorigin,
religiousaffiliation,orFirstAmendmentprotectedactivities).
PlaintiffJohnDoeNo.2
257. On or about May, 2010, Mr. John Doe No. 2 appeared at the Detroit
MetropolitanAirportuponreturningonaflightfromatriptoTurkey.
258. He was referred to secondary screening and subjected to a prolonged
interrogation.
259. Duringhisinterrogation,CBPofficersbeganlookingthroughpicturesonMr.
DoeNo.2’slaptopandaskedhimquestionsabouthisplaceofworship,thereligiousleader
athismosque,whetherMr.DoeNo.2knewanyonewhowasinvolvedinterroristactivities,
andwhetherhehadinformationaboutothercongregantsathisplaceofworship.
260. EverytimeMr.DoeNo.2travelsbyair,sincehisMay,2010trip,hisboarding
pass is stampedwith the “SSSS”designation, indicating thathehasbeendesignatedasa
“knownorsuspectedterrorist.”
261. Additionally, every time Mr. Doe No. 2 travels by air, he is referred to
secondaryinspectionandsubjectedtoprolongedsearchesandquestioning.
262. Mr.DoeNo.2filedaredressrequestthroughDHSTRIP.
263. OnJanuary19,2016,Mr.DoeNo.2receivedaletterasdescribedinparagraph
99aboveandwasassignedaRedressControlNumber.
40
264. AtnotimewasMr.DoeNo.2givennoticeofthefactualbasisforhisplacement
onthefederalwatchlist,andatnotimewasheofferedameaningfulopportunitytocontest
hisdesignation.
265. Moreover,atnotimewasMr.DoeNo.2givennoticeofthedeprivationofhis
libertyinterestsorviolationofhisconstitutionalrights.
266. Asofthedateofthisfiling,itisunclearwhetherMr.DoeNo.2remainsonthe
federalwatchlist.
267. Uponinformationandbelief,Mr.DoeNo.2’snominationtothefederalwatch
listwasmadebasedsolelyuponahunch(baseduponhis race,ethnicity,nationalorigin,
religiousaffiliation,orFirstAmendmentprotectedactivities).
PlaintiffJohnDoeNo.3
268. EverytimeMr.JohnDoeNo.3travelsbyair,since2002,hisboardingpassis
stampedwiththe“SSSS”designation,indicatingthathehasbeendesignatedasa“knownor
suspectedterrorist.”
269. Infact,in2002,uponreturningfromaninternationalflight,Mr.DoeNo.3was
escortedoffoftheplanebyFBIagents,beforehewasinterrogatedandthreatenedbyagents
fromdifferentgovernmentagencies.
270. Mr.DoeNo.3isfrequentlyunabletoboardhisflightsuntilheis“cleared”by
DHStoboardtheflight,aprocessthatcantakehours.
271. Moreover,Mr.DoeNo. 3 is frequently called over the loud speakers at the
airportafterhehasalreadyreachedthegatepriortotakeofftogobacktosecurity,onlyto
bedetainedandsubjectedtofurtherprolongedinterrogationsandsearches.
41
272. Additionally,TSAagentsconfiscatedhisphones,requestedhispasswords,and
uponinformationandbelief,downloadedinformationfromthem.
273. Onorabout2006,Mr.DoeNo.3’sJPMorganChaseBankwassuddenlyclosed
a fewdaysafterheopeneditwithoutnoticeoranexplanationofthereasonswhyitwas
beingclosed.
274. Upon information and belief, Unidentified TSC Agents disseminated the
stigmatizinglabelof“knownorsuspectedterrorist”attachedtoMr.DoeNo.3toJPMorgan
ChaseBank,andasaresult,hisbankaccountwasclosedwithoutnotice.
275. Mr.DoeNo. 3 lost lucrative employmentopportunities as a result of being
designatedasa“knownorsuspectedterrorist.”
276. Mr.DoeNo.3filedaredressrequestthroughDHSTRIP.
277. Asofthedateofthisfiling,Mr.DoeNo.3hasnotreceivedaresponsefrom
DHS,norhashebeenassignedaRedressControlNumber.
278. AtnotimewasMr.DoeNo.3givennoticeofthefactualbasisforhisplacement
onthefederalwatchlist,andatnotimewasheofferedameaningfulopportunitytocontest
hisdesignation.
279. Moreover,atnotimewasMr.DoeNo.3givennoticeofthedeprivationofhis
libertyinterestsorviolationofhisconstitutionalrights.
280. Uponinformationandbelief,Mr.DoeNo.3remainsonthefederalwatchlist.
281. Uponinformationandbelief,Mr.DoeNo.3’snominationtothefederalwatch
listwasmadebasedsolelyuponahunch(baseduponhis race,ethnicity,nationalorigin,
religiousaffiliation,orFirstAmendmentprotectedactivities).
42
282. Mr.DoeNo. 3 limits travels by airwhennecessary in order to avoidbeing
subjectedtotheabovetreatment.
COUNTIFAILURETOPROVIDEPOST‐DEPRIVATIONNOTICEANDHEARINGINVIOLATIONOF
THEFIFTHAMENDMENTRIGHTTOPROCEDURALDUEPROCESS(Jurisdictionunder28U.S.C.§1331and5U.S.C.§702)
283. Theforegoingallegationsarereallegedandincorporatedherein.
284. EachofthePlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituatedAmericancitizenslearned
thatheorshewasplacedonthefederalwatchlistsubsequenttobeingaddedonthefederal
watchlistandsoughttochallengesuchplacement.
285. Defendants’actionsasdescribedabove inrefusingtoprovidePlaintiffsand
othersimilarlysituatedAmericancitizenswithanynoticeatallof theirplacementwhich
deprived Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of constitutionally
protectedlibertyinterests.
286. Defendants’ actions in nominating Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
American citizens to the federal watch list blatantly violate the requirement that
“’nominations’ must not be solely based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religious
affiliation,orFirstAmendmentprotectedactivities.”49U.S.C.§114(h)(3).
287. PlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituatedAmericancitizenshavealibertyinterest
intravelingfreefromunreasonableburdensthatarenotreasonablytailoredwithin,to,and
fromtheUnitedStates,throughlandbordercrossingsandoverU.S.airspace.
288. PlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituatedAmericancitizenshavearighttobefree
fromfalsegovernmentstigmatizationas individualswhoare“knownorsuspectedtobe”
terrorists,orwhoareotherwiseassociatedwithterroristactivity,whensuchharmarisesin
43
conjunctionwiththeadditionalconsequencesthat followfrombeing listedaswellasthe
deprivation of their right to travel on the same terms as other travelers and/or the
deprivation of their liberty interest under the Fifth Amendment in travel free from
unreasonableburdens.
289. PlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituatedAmericancitizenshavealibertyinterest
innonattainder (ie: the interestagainstbeingsingledout forpunishmentwithout trial).
Defendants’actionshavesingledoutPlaintiffsandotherssimilarlysituatedforpunishments
thatinclude,butarenotlimitedto,inabilitytotravelbyairandunreasonableburdensplaced
upontravelingbyairtoandfromtheUnitedStates,overU.S.airspaceandatlandborder
crossings,andfalseassociationwithalistofindividualssuspectedofterrorism.
290. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens, having been
burdenedorpreventedfromboardingoncommercialflightsorenteringtheUnitedStatesat
landbordercrossings,havinghadtheirbankaccountsclosed,havingbeenpreventedfrom
making wire transfers at financial institutions, having had their citizenship applications
delayed indefinitely due to an “FBI name check,” having lost lucrative economic
opportunities and suffering from other forms of financial harm, and having sought to
challenge their placement on the federal watch list, are entitled to a constitutionally
adequate legal mechanism that affords them notice of the reasons and bases for their
placementonthefederalwatchlistandameaningfulopportunitytocontesttheircontinued
inclusiononthefederalwatchlist.Defendantshaveevenfailedtoprovidethemostbasic
ingredientofdueprocess,whichisnoticethatthegovernmenthasdeprivedapersonoftheir
protectedrights.
44
291. Moreover,DefendantshaveofficiallyimposedonPlaintiffsandothersimilarly
situatedAmericancitizensthestigmatizinglabelof“knownorsuspectedterrorists”without
aconstitutionallyadequatelegalmechanism.
292. Further,DefendantsdisseminatedthestigmatizinglabelattachedtoPlaintiffs
andothersimilarlysituatedAmericancitizensof“knownorsuspectedterrorists”tostate
andlocalauthorities,foreigngovernments,corporations,privatecontractors,gunsellers,the
captainsofsea‐faringvessels,amongotherofficialandprivateentitiesandindividuals.
293. ByimposingonPlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituatedAmericancitizensthe
stigmatizinglabelof“knownorsuspectedterrorists”andbyfailingtoprovidePlaintiffsand
otherssimilarlysituatedwithaconstitutionallyadequatelegalmechanism,Defendantshave
deprivedPlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituatedAmericancitizensoftheirprotectedliberty
interests,includingbutnotlimitedtotheirlibertyinterestsintraveling,freedomfromfalse
stigmatization,andnonattainder,andthusviolatedtheconstitutionalrightsofPlaintiffsand
othersimilarlysituatedAmericancitizenswithoutaffordingthemdueprocessof lawand
will continue to do so into the future if Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American
citizensarenotaffordedthereliefdemandedbelow.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory and
injunctivereliefintheformdescribedinthePrayerforReliefbelow,plusallsuchotherrelief
thisCourtdeemsjustandproperincludingcostsandattorneys’feesincurredinthisaction.
COUNTIIDEPRIVATIONOFPROTECTEDLIBERTIESINVIOLATIONOFFIFTHAMENDMENT
RIGHTTOSUBSTANTIVEDUEPROCESS(Jurisdictionunder28U.S.C.§1331and5U.S.C.§702)
294. Theforegoingallegationsarereallegedandincorporatedherein.
45
295. BecausePlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituatedAmericancitizenswerelisted
by Defendants in a manner not narrowly tailored to a compelling interest, Defendants’
actions as described above in including Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American
citizens on a watch list that unreasonably burdens or prevents them from boarding
commercialflightsorenteringtheUnitedStatesatlandbordercrossings,arearbitraryand
capricious,lackevenarationalrelationshiptoanylegitimategovernmentinterest,andhave
unduly deprived Plaintiffs of constitutionally protected rights, including their liberty
interestsintravel,freedomfromfalsestigmatization,andnonattainder.
296. Defendants’ actions in nominating Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
American citizens to the federal watch list blatantly violate the requirement that
“’nominations’ must not be solely based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religious
affiliation,orFirstAmendmentprotectedactivities.”49U.S.C.§114(h)(3).
297. By placing Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens on the
federalwatchlist,Defendantshaveplacedanundueburdenontheirfundamentalrightof
movement.
298. By placing Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens on the
federalwatchlist,DefendantshavetreatedPlaintiffslikesecond‐classcitizens.
299. Defendants’watchlistlacksacompellinginterestinsofarastheirtruepurpose
is to provide law enforcement with a tool to coerce American Muslims into becoming
informants.
300. Defendants’watch list are alsonotnarrowly tailored insofar as the federal
watchlistareentirelyanddemonstrablyineffectualandobviousalternativesexist.
46
301. Defendants’actionsinplacingPlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituatedAmerican
citizensonthefederalwatchlist,officiallyimposingonPlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituated
American citizens the stigmatizing label of “known or suspected terrorists,” and
disseminating the stigmatizing label to state and local authorities, foreign governments,
corporations,privatecontractors,gunsellers,thecaptainsofsea‐faringvessels,amongother
official and private entities and individuals, without a constitutionally adequate legal
mechanism, are arbitrary and capricious, shock the conscience, violate the decencies of
civilized conduct and are so brutal and offensive that they do not comport with the
traditionalideasoffairplayanddecency.
302. Because Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens have not
been charged with any crimes and are United States Citizens, Plaintiffs challenge their
placementandtheplacementofotherssimilarlysituatedAmericancitizensonthefederal
watchlistonabroad,as‐appliedbasis.
303. Plaintiffs’ substantive due process challenge is also facial, as there are no
circumstanceswheretheirplacementortheplacementofotherssimilarlysituatedonthe
federalwatchlistisnarrowlytailoredtoachieveanycompellinggovernmentinterest.
304. Defendants have thus violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and the
constitutional rightsofothersimilarlysituatedAmericancitizenswithoutaffording them
dueprocessoflawandwillcontinuetodosointothefutureifPlaintiffsandothersimilarly
situatedAmericancitizensarenotaffordedthereliefdemandedbelow.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory and
injunctivereliefintheformdescribedinthePrayerforReliefbelow,plusallsuchotherrelief
thisCourtdeemsjustandproperincludingcostsandattorneys’feesincurredinthisaction.
47
COUNTIIIUNLAWFULAGENCYACTIONINVIOLATIONOFTHEADMINISTRATIVEPROCEDURE
ACT,5U.S.C.§§702,706(Jurisdictionunder28U.S.C.§1331and5U.S.C.§702)
305. Theforegoingallegationsarereallegedandincorporatedherein.
306. Defendants’actionsinplacingPlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituatedAmerican
citizensonthefederalwatchlist,officiallyimposingonPlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituated
American citizens the stigmatizing label of “known or suspected terrorists,” and
disseminating the stigmatizing label to state and local authorities, foreign governments,
corporations,privatecontractors,gunsellers,thecaptainsofsea‐faringvessels,amongother
official and private entities and individuals, without a constitutionally adequate legal
mechanism,were and are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, otherwise not in
accordancewithlaw,andcontrarytoconstitutionalrights,power,privilege,orimmunity,
andshouldbesetasideasunlawfulpursuantto5U.S.C.§706.
307. Defendants’ actions in nominating Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
American citizens to the federal watch list blatantly violate the requirement that
“’nominations’ must not be solely based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religious
affiliation,orFirstAmendmentprotectedactivities.”49U.S.C.§114(h)(3).
308. Defendants’failuretoprovidePlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituatedAmerican
citizens,whohadbeenunreasonablyburdenedordeniedboardingoncommercialflightsor
enteringtheUnitedStatesacrosstheborderandsoughttochallengetheirplacementonthe
federalwatchlist,withaconstitutionallyadequatemechanismthataffordsthemnoticeof
the reasons and bases for their placement on the federal watch list and a meaningful
opportunity to contest their continued inclusion on the federal watch list is arbitrary,
48
capricious,anabuseofdiscretion,otherwisenot inaccordancewith law,andcontrary to
constitutional rights, power, privilege, or immunity, and should be set aside as unlawful
pursuantto5U.S.C.§706.
309. Because Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens do not
presentasecuritythreattocommercialaviation,Defendants’actionsasdescribedabovein
includingPlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituatedAmericancitizensonthefederalwatchlist
thatunreasonablyburdensorpreventsthemfromboardingcommercialflightsorentering
the United States across the border, are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,
otherwisenotinaccordancewithlaw,andcontrarytoconstitutionalrights,power,privilege,
orimmunity,andshouldbesetasideasunlawfulpursuantto5U.S.C.§706.
310. PlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituatedAmericancitizensarenotrequiredto
exhausttheDHSTRIPprocess,undertheholdinginDarbyv.Cisneros,509U.S.137(1993).
SeeUnitedStatesDistrictCourt,EasternDistrictofVirginia,CaseNo.11‐cv‐00050(2011);
Dkt.70at22;attachedasMemorandumOpinion(Exhibit4).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory and
injunctivereliefintheformdescribedinthePrayerforReliefbelow,plusallsuchotherrelief
thisCourtdeemsjustandproperincludingcostsandattorneys’feesincurredinthisaction.
COUNTIVVIOLATIONOFTHEFIFTHAMENDMENTTOTHEUNITEDSTATESCONSTITUTION
(Jurisdictionunder28U.S.C.§1331and5U.S.C.§702)(EqualProtection)
311. Theforegoingallegationsarereallegedandincorporatedherein.
49
312. Defendants’actionsinplacingPlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituatedAmerican
citizensonthefederalwatchlist,officiallyimposingonPlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituated
American citizens the stigmatizing label of “known or suspected terrorists,” and
disseminating the stigmatizing label to state and local authorities, foreign governments,
corporations,privatecontractors,gunsellers,thecaptainsofsea‐faringvessels,amongother
official and private entities and individuals, without a constitutionally adequate legal
mechanismarediscriminatoryandconstituteanaction that targets religiousconduct for
distinctivetreatment.
313. Defendants’ actions in nominating Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
American citizens to the federal watch list blatantly violate the requirement that
“’nominations’ must not be solely based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religious
affiliation,orFirstAmendmentprotectedactivities.”49U.S.C.§114(h)(3).
314. By placing Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens on the
federalwatchlist,DefendantshavetreatedPlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituatedAmerican
citizenslikesecond‐classcitizens.
315. Defendants’above‐describedactionsweremotivatedbythereligiousstatusof
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens and on the basis of the
constitutionally‐protectedfreeexerciseofreligionofPlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituated
Americancitizens.
316. Defendants’ above‐describedactionshavehadadiscriminatoryeffectupon
andhavedisparatelyimpactedPlaintiffsandothersimilarlysituatedAmericancitizenswho
areMuslimAmericantravelers,andnottravelersofotherfaiths.
50
317. Defendants’above‐describedactions,policies,courseofconduct,orpatternof
practice that mandate or permit the above‐described treatment of Plaintiffs and other
similarlysituatedAmericancitizensdoesnotserveacompellingstateinterestoralegitimate
orpublicpurpose,noraretheytheleastrestrictivemeansornarrowlytailoredtoachieve
anysuchinterest.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory and
injunctivereliefintheformdescribedinthePrayerforReliefbelow,plusallsuchotherrelief
thisCourtdeemsjustandproperincludingcostsandattorneys’feesincurredinthisaction.
COUNTVVIOLATIONOFTHEUNITEDSTATESCONSTITUTION
(Non‐Delegation)
318. Theforegoingallegationsarereallegedandincorporatedherein.
319. CongresshasnotprovidedtheExecutiveBranchwith intelligibleprinciples
fromwhichtheExecutivecanimplementitswatchlistschemesregardingcivilaviationand
nationalsecurity.
320. The Executive branch’s assignment of the watch listing function to TSC
violatesCongress’directivethatTSAdeterminewhobelongsonfederalwatchlistsandthe
consequencesthatflowfrombeingonthoselists.
321. CongresshasnotdelegatedtoTSAtheauthoritytocreateaprocessthatcan
culminateintheremovalofindividualsfromtheTSDB.
322. Inthealternative,Congress’sdelegationtoTSAtocreatearedressprocessis
defectivebecausetheExecutiveBranchhasallocatedwatchlistauthorityinamannerthat
preventsTSAfromcreatingaredressprocess.
51
323. Asaresult,Defendantshaveillegallyactedbeyondtheirauthority.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory and
injunctivereliefintheformdescribedinthePrayerforReliefbelow,plusallsuchotherrelief
thisCourtdeemsjustandproperincludingcostsandattorneys’feesincurredinthisaction.
PrayerforRelief
WHEREFORE,Plaintiffsrespectfullyrequest:
1. AdeclaratoryjudgmentthatDefendants’policies,practices,andcustomsviolate
theFifthAmendment to theUnited StatesConstitutionand theAdministrative
ProcedureAct;
2. Aninjunctionthat:
a. requiresDefendantstoremedytheconstitutionalandstatutoryviolations
identifiedabove,includingtheremovalofPlaintiffsfromanywatchlistor
databasethatburdensorpreventsthemfromflyingorenteringtheUnited
Statesacrosstheborder;and,
b. requires Defendants to provide individuals designated on the federal
watchlistwithalegalmechanismthataffordsthemnoticeofthereasons
andbasesfortheirplacementonthefederalwatchlistandameaningful
opportunitytocontesttheircontinuedinclusiononthefederalwatchlist;
3. Atrialbyjury;
4. Anawardofattorneys’fees,costs,andexpensesofalllitigation,pursuantto28
U.S.C.§2412;and,
5. SuchotherandfurtherreliefastheCourtmaydeemjustandproper.
52
JURYDEMAND
NOWCOMEPlaintiffs,byandthroughtheirundersignedcounsel,andherebydemand
trialbyjuryoftheabove‐referencedcausesofaction.
Respectfullysubmitted,
THELAWOFFICEOFGADEIRABBASBY:/s/GadeirAbbasGADEIRI.ABBASAttorneyforPlaintiffs1155FStreetNW,Suite1050Washington,D.C.20004Telephone:(720)251‐0425Fax:(720)251‐0425Email:[email protected],notinD.C.PracticelimitedtofederalmattersCOUNCILONAMERICAN‐ISLAMICRELATIONS,MICHIGANBY: /s/LenaMasriLENAF.MASRI(P73461)AttorneyforPlaintiffsLegalDirector30201OrchardLakeRd.,Suite260FarmingtonHills,MI48334Phone:(248)559‐2247AKEEL&VALENTINE,PLLCBY: /s/ShereefAkeelSHEREEFH.AKEEL(P54345)AttorneyforPlaintiffs888W.BigBeaverRd.,Ste.910Troy,MI48084Phone:(248)269‐[email protected]
Dated:April5,2016