Halil Demir v Markwayne Mullin, 25-3179
U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit Civil Administrative Law
Holdings
- Seventh Circuit holds § 46110 doesn't cover watchlist inclusion claims because TSA lacks control over the Terrorist Watchlist and Selectee List
- Court reaffirms that DHS TRIP redress program qualifies as a reviewable 'order' under § 46110, requiring direct court of appeals review
- Useful for administrative and national security litigators handling watchlist challenges, jurisdictional channeling statutes, and bifurcated review strategies
Summary
Halil Demir sued federal officials in the Northern District of Illinois, challenging his placement on the FBI's Terrorist Watchlist and Selectee List and the adequacy of the DHS TRIP redress process, asserting APA and Fifth Amendment due process claims. The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that 49 U.S.C. § 46110 required such claims to be brought directly in a court of appeals rather than in district court. Demir appealed to the Seventh Circuit.
The Seventh Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part. It held that § 46110 does not apply to Demir's challenge to his watchlist inclusion because the statute channels review only of orders issued by TSA and certain other named agencies—not the Threat Screening Center, which actually administers the Terrorist Watchlist and Selectee List. Because a court of appeals could not grant Demir's requested relief (removal from the lists) under § 46110, the district court retained jurisdiction over that claim. However, the court affirmed dismissal of Demir's separate challenge to the DHS TRIP redress program itself, following its own precedent in Sima Products Corp. v. McLucas, which broadly interprets 'order' to include any final agency action reviewable on an administrative record, including regulatory programs like DHS TRIP.
The decision creates a bifurcated review scheme: watchlist inclusion challenges proceed in district court, while procedural challenges to the DHS TRIP program must go directly to a court of appeals. The court acknowledged this split is procedurally awkward but consistent with existing precedent and not unprecedented among similar jurisdictional schemes.
In short
1. Section 46110 does not apply because TSA does not control the Terrorist Watchlist or Selectee List — the Threat Screening Center (administered by the FBI) does. A challenge to initial placement or continued inclusion on these lists is not a challenge to a TSA 'order' within the meaning of § 46110, and the remedy sought (removal from the lists) cannot be granted by a court of appeals under § 46110(a),(c). (reversed and remanded)
2. The DHS TRIP program constitutes an 'order' within the meaning of § 46110 under the broad interpretation established in Sima Products Corp. v. McLucas, meaning Demir's procedural challenge to DHS TRIP must be filed in a court of appeals in the first instance, not in district court. (affirmed)
This summary was drafted by AI and verified against the slip opinion. It may contain errors and is not legal advice — always read the original before relying on it.