U.S. District Court Eastern District of Virginia - (Alexandria) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA

JURY

Elhady et al v. Piehota et al Assigned to: District Judge Anthony J Trenga Referred to: Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson Case in other court: 4th Circuit, 20-01311 Cause: 42:1981 Civil Rights

Date Filed: 04/05/2016 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff Anas Elhady

represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas CAIR National Legal Defense Fund 453 New Jersey Ave SE Washington, DC 20003 202-488-8787 Fax: 202-379-3317 Email: gabbas@cair.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin Mark Sadowsky Council on American Islamic Relations 453 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20003 202-488-8787 Fax: 202-488-0833 Email: jsadowsky@cair.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lena F. Masri CAIR National Legal Defense Fund 453 New Jersey Ave SE Washington, DC 20003 202-742-6420 Fax: 202-379-3317 Email: lmasri@cair.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Osama Hussein Ahmed
Plaintiff Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi
Plaintiff Michael Edmund Coleman
Plaintiff Wael Hakmeh

represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Mark Sadowsky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F. Masri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Mark Sadowsky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F. Masri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Mark Sadowsky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F. Masri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff Murat Frljuckic
Plaintiff Adnan Khalil Shaout
Plaintiff Saleem Ali

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Mark Sadowsky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F. Masri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Mark Sadowsky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F. Masri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Mark Sadowsky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F. Masri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Mark Sadowsky

Plaintiff Samir Anwar
Plaintiff John Doe No. 1 TERMINATED: 04/27/2018
Plaintiff John Doe No. 2

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F. Masri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Mark Sadowsky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F. Masri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Mark Sadowsky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Mark Sadowsky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F. Masri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff John Doe No. 3
Plaintiff Shahir Anwar
Plaintiff Baby Doe 2 by his next friend, Father Doe 2
Plaintiff

represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Mark Sadowsky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F. Masri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Mark Sadowsky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F. Masri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Mark Sadowsky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F. Masri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yaseen Kadura
Plaintiff Hassan Shibly
Plaintiff Ausama Elhuzayel
Plaintiff Donald Thomas

represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Mark Sadowsky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F. Masri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Mark Sadowsky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F. Masri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Mark Sadowsky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F. Masri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff Ibrahim Awad
Plaintiff Muhammad Yahya Khan
Plaintiff Hassan Fares

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Mark Sadowsky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F. Masri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Mark Sadowsky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F. Masri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Mark Sadowsky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F. Masri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Mark Sadowsky

Plaintiff Zuhair El-Shwehdi
Plaintiff Mahmoud Eraqi TERMINATED: 04/27/2018
Plaintiff John Doe No. 4

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F. Masri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Mark Sadowsky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F. Masri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Mark Sadowsky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F. Masri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Mark Sadowsky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Mark Amri

Lena F. Masri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Mark Sadowsky (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lena F. Masri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Charles H. Kable Director of the Terrorist Screening Center, in his official capacity
Defendant Kelli Ann Burriesci Principal Deputy Director of the

represented by R. Joseph Sher United States Attorney's Office 2100 Jamieson Ave Alexandria, VA 22314 NA (703) 299-3700 Email: joe.sher@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren A. Wetzler US Attorney's Office (Alexandria) 2100 Jamieson Avenue Alexandria, VA 22314 703-299-3700 Fax: 703-299-3983 Email: lauren.wetzler@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by R. Joseph Sher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Terrorist Screening Center in her official capacity
Defendant Timothy P. Groh Deputy Director for Operations at the Terrorist Screening Center in his official capacity
Defendant Deborah Moore Director of Department of Homeland Security Traveler Redress Inquiry Program in her official capacity
Defendant Nicholas J. Rasmussen Director of the National Counterterrorism Center in his official capacity
Defendant David Pekoske Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration in his official capacity

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren A. Wetzler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by R. Joseph Sher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren A. Wetzler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by R. Joseph Sher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren A. Wetzler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by R. Joseph Sher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren A. Wetzler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by R. Joseph Sher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren A. Wetzler

Defendant Christopher Wray Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in his official capacity
Defendant Kevin K. McAleenan Acting Commissioner of United States Customs and Border Protection in his official capacity
Interested Party David Andrew Christenson

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by R. Joseph Sher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren A. Wetzler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by R. Joseph Sher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren A. Wetzler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Andrew Christenson Box 9063 Miramar Beach, FL 32550 504-715-3086 PRO SE

Date Filed 04/05/2016

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against G. Clayton Grigg, James G. Kennedy, Steven Mabeus, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 14683058121) filed by Murat Frljuckic, John Doe No. 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Samir Anwar, Anas Elhady, Adnan Khalil Shaout, John Doe No. 3, Shahir Anwar, Osama Hussein Ahmed, Wael Hakmeh, Saleem Ali, John Doe No. 1, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Civil Cover Sheet, # 6 Letter, # 7 Receipt)(jlan) (Entered: 04/06/2016)

05/04/2016
05/04/2016
05/05/2016 05/05/2016 06/22/2016 07/01/2016 07/05/2016 08/30/2016
08/30/2016
08/30/2016

2 Motion to appear Pro Hac Vice by Lena Masri and Certification of Local Counsel Gadeir Abbas Filing fee $ 75, receipt number 04224972544. by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Michael Edmund Coleman, Anas Elhady, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, Adnan Khalil Shaout. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
3 Motion to appear Pro Hac Vice by Shereef Akeel and Certification of Local Counsel Gadeir Abbas Filing fee $ 75, receipt number 04224972720. by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Michael Edmund Coleman, Anas Elhady, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, Adnan Khalil Shaout. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
4 ORDER granting 2 Motion for Pro hac vice. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 05/05/16. (pmil, ) (Entered: 05/05/2016)
5 ORDER granting 3 Motion for Pro hac vice. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 05/05/16. (pmil, ) (Entered: 05/05/2016)
6 Summons Issued for service by Certified Mail as to James G. Kennedy, Christopher M. Piehota, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (pmil, ) (Entered: 06/23/2016)
7 Summons Issued for service by Certified Mail as to G. Clayton Grigg, Steven Mabeus, Matthew G. Olsen. (pmil, ) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
8 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to U.S. Atty; served on 7/5/2016, answer due 9/6/2016. (pmil, ) (Entered: 07/05/2016)
9 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer until September 2, 2016, Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by G. Clayton Grigg, James G. Kennedy, Steven Mabeus, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota. (Sher, R.) (Entered: 08/30/2016)
10 NOTICE by G. Clayton Grigg, James G. Kennedy, Steven Mabeus, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota re 9 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer until September 2, 2016Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages of Submission Without Argument (Sher, R.) (Entered: 08/30/2016)
11 ORDER granting 9 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer and Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 8/30/2016. (rban, ) (Entered: 08/30/2016)

09/02/2016 09/02/2016 09/06/2016 09/06/2016
09/15/2016 09/15/2016 09/16/2016 09/16/2016

12 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim , MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by G. Clayton Grigg, James G. Kennedy, Steven Mabeus, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Fourth Circuit Opinion in Mohamed v. Holder)(Sher, R.) (Entered: 09/02/2016)
13 Memorandum in Support re 12 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by G. Clayton Grigg, James G. Kennedy, Steven Mabeus, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota. (Sher, R.) (Entered: 09/02/2016)
Notice of Correction re: 12 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction . The filing user has been notified to file a Notice of Hearing Date or a Notice of Waiver of Oral Argument. (pmil, ) (Entered: 09/06/2016)
14 SCHEDULING ORDER: Initial Pretrial Conference set for 9/28/2016 at 11:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/19/2017 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 701 before District Judge Anthony J Trenga. Discovery due by 1/13/2017. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 9/06/2016. (Attachments: # 1 magistrate consent, # 2 pretrial notice) (jall) (VACATED AND DISCOVERY STAYED PER ORDER OF AJT 09/21/16 Modified on 9/21/2016 to add text(pmil, ). (Entered: 09/06/2016)
15 Emergency MOTION to Vacate 14 Scheduling Order, by G. Clayton Grigg, James G. Kennedy, Steven Mabeus, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Sher, R.) (Entered: 09/15/2016)
16 Memorandum in Support re 15 Emergency MOTION to Vacate 14 Scheduling Order, filed by G. Clayton Grigg, James G. Kennedy, Steven Mabeus, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota. (Sher, R.) (Entered: 09/15/2016)
17 MOTION to Vacate 12 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Michael Edmund Coleman, Anas Elhady, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, Adnan Khalil Shaout. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 09/16/2016)
Notice of Correction re: 15 Emergency MOTION to Vacate 14 Scheduling Order, . The filing user has been notified to file a

09/16/2016 09/16/2016
09/20/2016 09/20/2016 09/21/2016 09/21/2016
09/23/2016

Notice of Hearing Date or a Notice of Waiver of Oral Argument. (pmil, ) (Entered: 09/16/2016)
Notice of Correction re: 17 MOTION to Vacate 12 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction . The filing user has been notified to file a Notice of Hearing Date or a Notice of Waiver of Oral Argument. (pmil, ) (Entered: 09/16/2016)
18 Waiver of re 17 MOTION to Vacate 12 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Oral Argument by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Michael Edmund Coleman, Anas Elhady, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, Adnan Khalil Shaout (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 09/16/2016)
19 NOTICE of Appearance by Lauren A. Wetzler on behalf of G. Clayton Grigg, James G. Kennedy, Steven Mabeus, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 09/20/2016)
20 Notice of Hearing Date 09/30/2016 re 15 Emergency MOTION to Vacate 14 Scheduling Order, , 16 Memorandum in Support (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 09/20/2016)
Set Deadlines as to 15 Emergency MOTION to Vacate 14 Scheduling Order, . Motion Hearing set for 9/30/2016 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 701 before District Judge Anthony J Trenga. (klau, ) (Entered: 09/21/2016)
21 ORDER that the Court's 14 Scheduling Order be, and the same hereby is, VACATED, together with all scheduled conferences and deadlines referred to therein; and all discovery STAYED, pending further Order of the Court; the hearing on defts' Emergency Motion to Vacate the Scheduling Order, currently noticed by defts for 09/30/16 at 10:00 a.m. be, and the same hereby is, CANCELLED; on or before 09/23/16, pltfs file any amended complaint, in response to which deft shall answer, move or otherwise respond in accordance with the applicable rules. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 09/21/16. (pmil, ) (Entered: 09/21/2016)
22 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Murat Frljuckic, John Doe No. 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Samir Anwar, Anas Elhady, Adnan Khalil Shaout, John Doe No. 3, Shahir Anwar, Osama Hussein Ahmed, Wael Hakmeh, Saleem Ali, John Doe No. 1, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 09/23/2016)

10/07/2016 10/11/2016 11/03/2016 11/03/2016 11/04/2016 11/04/2016 11/04/2016 11/04/2016

23 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 22 Amended Complaint, and to Establish a Briefing and Hearing Schedule for the Defendants' Anticipated Motion to Dismiss by James Comey, G. Clayton Grigg, James G. Kennedy, R. Gil Kerlikowske, Steven Mabeus, Peter Neffenger, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota. (Sher, R.) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
24 ORDER that the parties' 23 Joint MOTION to Establish a Briefing and Hearing Schedule for the Defendants' Anticipated Motion to Dismiss be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED, together with all deadlines referred to therin. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 10/11/16. (pmil, ) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
25 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by James Comey, G. Clayton Grigg, James G. Kennedy, R. Gil Kerlikowske, Steven Mabeus, Peter Neffenger, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota. (Sher, R.) (Entered: 11/03/2016)
26 NOTICE by James Comey, G. Clayton Grigg, James G. Kennedy, R. Gil Kerlikowske, Steven Mabeus, Peter Neffenger, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota re 25 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages of Waiver of Oral Hearing (Sher, R.) (Entered: 11/03/2016)
27 ORDER - It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Consent Motion to File Excess Pages 25 be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. Defendants' memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss is to be no longer than fi fly-five pages and Plaintiffs' response brief is to be no longer than fifty-five pages. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 11/4/16. (gwalk, ) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
28 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by James Comey, G. Clayton Grigg, James G. Kennedy, R. Gil Kerlikowske, Steven Mabeus, Peter Neffenger, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Unpublished Opinion in Mohamed v. Holder, # 2 Exhibit)(Sher, R.) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
29 Memorandum in Support re 28 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by James Comey, G. Clayton Grigg, James G. Kennedy, R. Gil Kerlikowske, Steven Mabeus, Peter Neffenger, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota. (Sher, R.) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
30 Notice of Hearing Date of Friday January 6, 2017 re 28 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Sher, R.) (Entered: 11/04/2016)

11/07/2016 12/02/2016
12/02/2016
12/05/2016 12/05/2016 12/05/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016

Set Deadlines as to 28 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim . Motion Hearing set for 1/6/2017 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 701 before District Judge Anthony J Trenga. (clar, ) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
31 RESPONSE in Opposition re 28 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 12/02/2016)
32 MOTION for Protective Order and to Keep the Names of Unidentified Plaintiffs Under Seal by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 12/02/2016)
33 Notice of Hearing Date set for 01/06/2017 re 32 MOTION for Protective Order and to Keep the Names of Unidentified Plaintiffs Under Seal (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
Set Deadlines as to 32 MOTION for Protective Order and to Keep the Names of Unidentified Plaintiffs Under Seal. Motion Hearing set for 1/6/2017 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (dest, ) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge: Anderson. 32 MOTION for Protective Order and to Keep the Names of Unidentified Plaintiffs Under Seal (dest, ) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
34 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by James Comey, G. Clayton Grigg, James G. Kennedy, R. Gil Kerlikowske, Steven Mabeus, Peter Neffenger, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota. (Sher, R.) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
35 NOTICE by James Comey, G. Clayton Grigg, James G. Kennedy, R. Gil Kerlikowske, Steven Mabeus, Peter Neffenger, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota re 34 Consent MOTION for Leave to File

12/16/2016 12/16/2016 12/16/2016 12/22/2016
12/27/2016 12/27/2016 01/04/2017

Excess Pages of Submission Without a Hearing (Sher, R.) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
36 ORDER granting 34 Consent Motion to File Excess Pages; Defts' reply brief shall be no longer than twenty-six pages and otherwise filed in accordance with applicable rules. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 12/15/16. (pmil, ) (Entered: 12/16/2016)
37 REPLY to Response to Motion re 28 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by James Comey, G. Clayton Grigg, James G. Kennedy, R. Gil Kerlikowske, Steven Mabeus, Peter Neffenger, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota. (Sher, R.) (Entered: 12/16/2016)
38 Memorandum in Opposition re 32 MOTION for Protective Order and to Keep the Names of Unidentified Plaintiffs Under Seal filed by James Comey, G. Clayton Grigg, James G. Kennedy, R. Gil Kerlikowske, Steven Mabeus, Peter Neffenger, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota. (Sher, R.) (Entered: 12/16/2016)
39 REPLY to Response to Motion re 32 MOTION for Protective Order and to Keep the Names of Unidentified Plaintiffs Under Seal filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
40 ORDER that the hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 28), currently scheduled for Friday, January 6, 2017 at 10:00 a.m., be, and the same hereby is, CONTINUED to Friday, January 13, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 12/27/16. (klau, ) (Entered: 12/27/2016)
Reset Deadlines as to 28 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim . Motion Hearing set for 1/13/2017 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 701 before District Judge Anthony J Trenga. (klau, ) (Entered: 12/27/2016)
41 ORDER - ORDERED that the hearing on the pending motion for a protective order (Docket no. 32) is also continued from January 6, 2017 to January 13, 2017. Counsel shall plan to present any argument on the motion for a protective order before the undersigned following the

01/04/2017 01/12/2017 01/12/2017 01/12/2017 01/13/2017
01/13/2017

hearing on the motion to dismiss before the District Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 01/04/2017. (wgar, ) (Entered: 01/04/2017)
Reset Deadlines as to 32 MOTION for Protective Order and to Keep the Names of Unidentified Plaintiffs Under Seal. Motion Hearing reset for 1/13/2017 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (wgar, ) (Entered: 01/04/2017)
42 ORDER - The hearing on the pending motion for a protective order (Docket no. 32) to be heard before the undersigned is rescheduled from Friday, January 13, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 01/12/2017. (wgar, ) (Entered: 01/12/2017)
Reset Deadlines as to 32 MOTION for Protective Order and to Keep the Names of Unidentified Plaintiffs Under Seal. Motion Hearing reset for 1/13/2017 at 10:30 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (wgar, ) (Entered: 01/12/2017)
43 NOTICE by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 01/12/2017)
44 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson:Motion Hearing held on 1/13/2017 re 32 MOTION for Protective Order and to Keep the Names of Unidentified Plaintiffs Under Seal filed by Wael Hakmeh, Mark Amri, Shahir Anwar, Murat Frljuckic, Michael Edmund Coleman, Mahmoud Eraqi, Yaseen Kadura, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas, Ausama Elhuzayel, John Doe No. 2, Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Baby Doe 2, Saleem Ali, Muhammad Yahya Khan, John Doe No. 1, Samir Anwar, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, John Doe No. 3, Hassan Fares, John Doe No. 4, Anas Elhady, Ibrahim Awad, Hassan Shibly. Appearances of counsel for plaintiffs and defendants. Motion for a protective order argued and GRANTED. Order to follow. (Tape #FTR.)(wgar, ) (Entered: 01/13/2017)
45 ORDER, for the reasons stated from the bench, granting 32 Motion for Protective Order for the pretrial proceedings in this case. ORDERED the Doe plaintiffs may proceed anonymously through the pretrial proceedings in this case, but shall provide defendants with their

01/13/2017
09/05/2017 09/05/2017 09/15/2017 09/15/2017

identities for use during this litigation. The defendants shall not disclose the identities of the Doe plaintiffs absent further Order of the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 01/13/2017. (wgar, ) (Entered: 01/13/2017)
46 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Anthony J Trenga: Motion Hearing held on 1/13/2017 re 28 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by James G. Kennedy, James Comey, Steven Mabeus, R. Gil Kerlikowske, Matthew G. Olsen, Peter Neffenger, Christopher M. Piehota, G. Clayton Grigg. Appearances of Counsel for Pltf. and Deft. Motion argued and TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. Order to follow. (Court Reporter R. Montgomery.) (jall) (Entered: 01/13/2017)
47 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that Defts' 28 Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; it is GRANTED as to Pltfs claims for a violation of substantive due process (Count III), the Equal Protection Clause (Count IV), and the non-delegation doctrine (Count V), and these claims are hereby DISMISSED; and it is otherwise denied (see Order for details). Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 09/05/17. (pmil, ) (Entered: 09/05/2017)
48 SCHEDULING ORDER: Initial Pretrial Conference set for 9/27/2017 at 11:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/18/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 701 before District Judge Anthony J Trenga. Discovery due by 1/12/2018. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 9/05/2017. (Attachments: # 1 magistrate consent, # 2 pretrial notice) (jall) (Entered: 09/05/2017)
49 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by James Comey, G. Clayton Grigg, James G. Kennedy, R. Gil Kerlikowske, Steven Mabeus, Peter Neffenger, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 09/15/2017)
50 ORDER granting 49 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. ORDERED the Answer to the Amended Complaint will be due on or before October 4, 2017. NO FURTHER ENLARGEMENTS WILL BE

09/20/2017 09/27/2017 09/27/2017
10/04/2017 10/20/2017 10/20/2017 10/20/2017 10/23/2017 10/23/2017

GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 09/15/2017. (wgar, ) (Entered: 09/15/2017)
51 Joint Proposed Discovery Plan by James Comey, G. Clayton Grigg, James G. Kennedy, R. Gil Kerlikowske, Steven Mabeus, Peter Neffenger, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota.(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 09/20/2017)
52 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson:Initial Pretrial Conference held on 9/27/2017. Appearances of counsel for plaintiffs and defendants. The scope of discovery issues requires briefing and oral argument. Discovery Plan approved in part. Order to issue. (wgar, ) (Entered: 09/27/2017)
53 Order Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order - Pursuant to the Rule 16(b) Conference it is ordered that: The Joint Discovery Plan filed by the parties is approved in part and shall control discovery to the extent of its application unless further modified by the court. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 09/27/2017. SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS. (wgar, ) (Entered: 09/27/2017)
54 ANSWER to Complaint by G. Clayton Grigg, James G. Kennedy, R. Gil Kerlikowske, Steven Mabeus, Peter Neffenger, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota.(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 10/04/2017)
55 MOTION for Protective Order by James Comey, G. Clayton Grigg, James G. Kennedy, R. Gil Kerlikowske, Steven Mabeus, Peter Neffenger, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
56 Memorandum in Support re 55 MOTION for Protective Order filed by James Comey, G. Clayton Grigg, James G. Kennedy, R. Gil Kerlikowske, Steven Mabeus, Peter Neffenger, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit All Exhibits)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
57 Notice of Hearing Date set for 10/27/2017 re 55 MOTION for Protective Order (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
Set Deadlines as to 55 MOTION for Protective Order . Motion Hearing set for 10/27/2017 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (clar, ) (Entered: 10/23/2017)
MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge: Anderson. 55 MOTION for Protective Order (clar, ) (Entered: 10/23/2017)

10/25/2017 10/25/2017 10/27/2017 10/27/2017 11/06/2017

58 NOTICE by James Comey, G. Clayton Grigg, James G. Kennedy, R. Gil Kerlikowske, Steven Mabeus, Peter Neffenger, Matthew G. Olsen, Christopher M. Piehota (Substitution of Defendants) (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
59 RESPONSE in Opposition re 55 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
60 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson:Motion Hearing held on 10/27/2017 re 55 MOTION for Protective Order filed by James G. Kennedy, James Comey, Steven Mabeus, R. Gil Kerlikowske, Matthew G. Olsen, Peter Neffenger, Christopher M. Piehota, G. Clayton Grigg. Appearances of counsel for plaintiffs and defendants. Motion argued and 55 MOTION for Protective Order - GRANTED IN PART/DENIED IN PART. Order to follow. (Tape #FTR.)(wgar, ) (Entered: 10/27/2017)
61 ORDER, for the reasons stated from the bench, granting in part and denying in part 55 Motion for Protective Order. ORDERED Defendants' motion is granted as to information underlying watchlisting determinations and information in defendants' possession regarding plaintiffs unrelated to watchlisting. Defendants' motion is denied as to plaintiffs' watchlist status and information regarding how broadly the watchlist is disseminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 10/27/2017. (wgar, ) (Entered: 10/27/2017)
62 TRANSCRIPT of motion hearing held on 10-27-2017 before Mag. Judge Anderson. Court reporter Norman Linnell, telephone number 703-549-4626. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have thirty(30) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vaed.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the court reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 12/6/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/8/2018. Release

11/10/2017
11/13/2017 11/13/2017 11/14/2017
11/14/2017 11/14/2017 11/21/2017 11/24/2017 11/27/2017

of Transcript Restriction set for 2/5/2018.(linnell, norman) (Entered: 11/06/2017)
63 MOTION to Compel and for Extension of Discovery Deadlines by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 11/10/2017)
Notice of Correction re 63 MOTION to Compel and for Extension of Discovery Deadlines. The filing user has been notified to file a Notice of Hearing Date or a Notice of Waiver of Oral Argument. (acha, ) (Entered: 11/13/2017)
64 Notice of Hearing Date re 63 MOTION to Compel and for Extension of Discovery Deadlines (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 11/13/2017)
Set Deadlines as to 63 MOTION to Compel and for Extension of Discovery Deadlines. Motion Hearing set for 11/17/2017 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (Attorney has been notified to file an Amended Notice of Hearing for an appropriate Friday Docket - Filed Untimely) Deadlines Terminated (clar, ) (Entered: 11/14/2017)
Notice of Correction re 64 Notice of Hearing Date. The filing user has been notified to file an Amended Notice of Hearing Date, as the Notice of Hearing Date set an untimely hearing. (clar, ) (Entered: 11/14/2017)
MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge: Anderson. 63 MOTION to Compel and for Extension of Discovery Deadlines (clar, ) (Entered: 11/14/2017)
65 Opposition to 63 MOTION to Compel and for Extension of Discovery Deadlines filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (All exhibits))(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 11/21/2017)
66 Notice of Hearing Date set for 12/01/2017 re 63 MOTION to Compel and for Extension of Discovery Deadlines, Notice of Correction (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 11/24/2017)
Reset Deadlines as to 63 MOTION to Compel and for Extension of Discovery Deadlines. Motion Hearing set for 12/1/2017 at 10:00 AM in

12/01/2017
12/01/2017
12/01/2017 12/01/2017 12/01/2017 12/01/2017

Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (clar, ) (Entered: 11/27/2017)
67 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson:Motion Hearing held on 12/1/2017 re 63 MOTION to Compel and for Extension of Discovery Deadlines filed by Wael Hakmeh, Mark Amri, Shahir Anwar, Murat Frljuckic, Michael Edmund Coleman, Mahmoud Eraqi, Yaseen Kadura, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas, Ausama Elhuzayel, John Doe No. 2, Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Baby Doe 2, Saleem Ali, Muhammad Yahya Khan, John Doe No. 1, Samir Anwar, Zuhair ElShwehdi, John Doe No. 3, Hassan Fares, John Doe No. 4, Anas Elhady, Ibrahim Awad, Hassan Shibly. Appearances of counsel for plaintiffs and defendants. Motion argued and 63 MOTION to Compel GRANTED IN PART/DENIED IN PART. Discovery due 2/23/18. Initial Expert Disclosures due: 1/12/18, Rebuttal Expert Disclosures due: 2/9/18. Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/15/18 at 10:00 a.m. Parties request to notice a motion for Thursday, December 7, 2017 GRANTED. Parties to notice motion for 12/7/17 at 11:00 a.m. Order to follow. (Tape #FTR.)(wgar, ) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
68 ORDER, for the reasons stated from the bench, granting in part and denying in part 63 Motion to Compel. ORDERED Defendants' production, a complete privilege log, and written responses in response to plaintiffs' first and second sets of requests for production are due by December 22, 2017. Discovery is now due February 23, 2018. Initial expert disclosures are due January 12, 2018, with rebuttal expert disclosures due February 9, 2018. The final pretrial conference will be held on Thursday, March 15, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 12/01/2017. (wgar, ) (Main Document 68 replaced on 12/1/2017) (wgar, ). (Entered: 12/01/2017)
Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: Final Pretrial Conference reset for 3/15/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 701 before District Judge Anthony J Trenga. (wgar, ) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
69 MOTION to Quash by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
70 Notice of Hearing Date set for 12/7/17 re 69 MOTION to Quash (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
71 Memorandum in Support re 69 MOTION to Quash filed by Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments:

12/01/2017 12/04/2017 12/04/2017 12/06/2017
12/07/2017 12/07/2017
01/05/2018

# 1 Exhibit Index & A-K, # 2 Errata M)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
72 NOTICE by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray re 71 Memorandum in Support, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit L -- part 1, # 2 Exhibit L -- part 2)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
Set Deadlines as to 69 MOTION to Quash . Motion Hearing set for 12/7/2017 at 11:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (clar, ) (Entered: 12/04/2017)
MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge: Anderson. 69 MOTION to Quash (clar, ) (Entered: 12/04/2017)
73 RESPONSE in Opposition re 69 MOTION to Quash filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 12/06/2017)
74 ORDER- It is hereby ORDERED that defendants' motion to quash is granted. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 12/7/2017. See order for further details. (acha, ) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
75 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson:Motion Hearing held on 12/7/2017 re 69 MOTION to Quash filed by David Pekoske, Deborah Moore, Christopher Wray, Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Kevin K. McAleenan, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Charles H. Kable. Appearance of counsel for plaintiffs and defendants. Motion argued and 69 MOTION to Quash GRANTED. Order to follow. (Tape #FTR.)(wgar, ) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
76 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Extend All Discovery Deadlines by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 01/05/2018)

01/05/2018 01/08/2018 01/08/2018 01/10/2018
01/10/2018
01/10/2018 01/12/2018 01/12/2018

77 Notice of Hearing Date set for 01/12/2018 re 76 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Extend All Discovery Deadlines (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 01/05/2018)
MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge: Anderson. 76 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Extend All Discovery Deadlines (klau, ) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
Set Deadlines as to 76 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Extend All Discovery Deadlines. Motion Hearing set for 1/12/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (klau, ) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
78 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 76 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Extend All Discovery Deadlines , MOTION to Continue Hearing on 76 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 01/10/2018)
79 ORDER granting 78 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply ; granting 78 Motion to Continue. ORDERED that Defendants' deadline by which to respond to Plaintiffs' pending Motion for Extension of All Discovery Deadlines, Dkt. No. 76, is extended through and including January 17, 2018, at 5:00 p.m.; and it is further ORDERED that hearing on the Motion for Extension of All Discovery Deadlines is continued to January 19, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 01/10/2018. (wgar, ) (Entered: 01/10/2018)
Reset Deadlines as to 76 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Extend All Discovery Deadlines. Motion Hearing reset for 1/19/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (wgar, ) (Entered: 01/10/2018)
80 MOTION to Compel Document Production, Interrogatories, and Deposition Testimony by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 01/12/2018)
81 Notice of Hearing Date set for 1/19/18 re 80 MOTION to Compel Document Production, Interrogatories, and Deposition Testimony (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 01/12/2018)

01/12/2018
01/12/2018 01/12/2018 01/12/2018 01/12/2018 01/16/2018 01/16/2018 01/17/2018

82 Memorandum in Support re 80 MOTION to Compel Document Production, Interrogatories, and Deposition Testimony filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4-14, # 5 Exhibit 15, # 6 Exhibit 17, part 1, # 7 Exhibit 17, part 2)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 01/12/2018)
83 EXHIBIT 17, part 3 in Support of 82 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 18, # 2 Exhibit 19, # 3 Exhibit 20, part 1, # 4 Exhibit 20, part 2)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 01/12/2018)
84 EXHIBIT 21 to 82 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 22, # 2 Exhibit 23, part 1, # 3 Exhibit 23, part 2, # 4 Exhibit 24, # 5 Exhibit 25)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 01/12/2018)
85 EXHIBIT 26 to 82 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 27, # 2 Exhibit 28, part 1, # 3 Exhibit 28, part 2)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 01/12/2018)
86 EXHIBIT 28, part 3 to 82 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel by Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 29, part 1, # 2 Exhibit 29, part 2, # 3 Exhibit 30, # 4 Exhibit 31, # 5 Exhibit 32, # 6 Exhibit 33)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 01/12/2018)
Set Deadlines as to 80 MOTION to Compel Document Production, Interrogatories, and Deposition Testimony. Motion Hearing set for 1/19/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (clar, ) (Entered: 01/16/2018)
MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge: Anderson. 80 MOTION to Compel Document Production, Interrogatories, and Deposition Testimony (clar, ) (Entered: 01/16/2018)
87 RESPONSE to Motion re 76 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Extend All Discovery Deadlines filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K.

01/17/2018
01/18/2018 01/18/2018 01/19/2018

McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 01/17/2018)
88 RESPONSE in Opposition re 80 MOTION to Compel Document Production, Interrogatories, and Deposition Testimony filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit)(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 01/17/2018)
89 REPLY to Response to Motion re 80 MOTION to Compel Document Production, Interrogatories, and Deposition Testimony filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 01/18/2018)
90 EXHIBIT 34 to 89 Reply to Response to Motion to Compel by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 35, # 2 Exhibit 36, # 3 Exhibit 37, # 4 Exhibit 38, # 5 Exhibit 39, # 6 Exhibit 40, # 7 Exhibit 41, # 8 Exhibit 42, # 9 Exhibit 43, # 10 Exhibit 44)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 01/18/2018)
91 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson:Motion Hearing held on 1/19/2018 re 76 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Extend All Discovery Deadlines filed by Wael Hakmeh, Mark Amri, Shahir Anwar, Murat Frljuckic, Michael Edmund Coleman, Mahmoud Eraqi, Yaseen Kadura, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas, Ausama Elhuzayel, John Doe No. 2, Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Baby Doe 2, Saleem Ali, Muhammad Yahya Khan, John Doe No. 1, Samir Anwar, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, John Doe No. 3, Hassan Fares, John Doe No. 4, Anas Elhady, Ibrahim Awad, Hassan Shibly, 80 MOTION to Compel Document Production, Interrogatories, and Deposition Testimony filed by Christopher Wray, Kelli Ann Burriesci, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Charles H. Kable, David Pekoske, Deborah Moore, Timothy P. Groh, Kevin K. McAleenan. Appearances of counsel for plaintiffs and defendants. Motions argued and 76 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery - DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 80 MOTION to Compel - GRANTED IN

01/19/2018 01/19/2018 02/01/2018
02/01/2018 02/02/2018 02/02/2018

PART/DENIED IN PART. Orders to follow. (Tape #FTR.)(wgar, ) (Entered: 01/19/2018)
92 ORDER, for the reasons stated from the bench, denying without prejudice 76 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 01/19/2018. (wgar, ) (Entered: 01/19/2018)
93 ORDER, for the reasons stated from the bench, granting in part and denying in part 80 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 01/19/2018. (wgar, ) (Entered: 01/19/2018)
94 TRANSCRIPT of motions hearing held on 1-19-2018 before Mag. Judge Anderson. Court reporter Norman Linnell, telephone number 703-549-4626. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have thirty(30) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vaed.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the court reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 3/5/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/3/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/2/2018.(linnell, norman) (Entered: 02/01/2018)
95 TRANSCRIPT of motions hearing held on 1-19-2018 before Judge Liam O'Grady. Court reporter Norman Linnell, telephone number 703549-4626. Modified on 2/1/2018 to remove duplicate document per Court Reporter Norman Linnell (ltun). (Entered: 02/01/2018)
96 MOTION for Protective Order by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
97 Notice of Hearing Date set for 02/09/2018 re 96 MOTION for Protective Order (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 02/02/2018)

02/05/2018

Set Deadlines as to 96 MOTION for Protective Order . Motion Hearing set for 2/9/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (clar, ) (Entered: 02/05/2018)

02/05/2018

MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge: Anderson. 96 MOTION for Protective Order (clar, ) (Entered: 02/05/2018)

02/05/2018

Notice of Correction re 96 MOTION for Protective Order The filing user has been notified to file the document separately for each motion relief in the future. (clar, ) (Entered: 02/05/2018)

02/07/2018

98 Memorandum in Opposition re 96 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 02/07/2018)

02/09/2018

99 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson:Motion Hearing held on 2/9/2018 re 96 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Wael Hakmeh, Mark Amri, Shahir Anwar, Murat Frljuckic, Michael Edmund Coleman, Mahmoud Eraqi, Yaseen Kadura, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas, Ausama Elhuzayel, John Doe No. 2, Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Baby Doe 2, Saleem Ali, Muhammad Yahya Khan, John Doe No. 1, Samir Anwar, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, John Doe No. 3, Hassan Fares, John Doe No. 4, Anas Elhady, Ibrahim Awad, Hassan Shibly. Appearances of counsel for plaintiffs and defendants. Motion argued and MOTION for Protective Order - GRANTED IN PART/DENIED IN PART. Order to follow. (Tape #FTR.)(wgar, ) (Entered: 02/09/2018)

02/09/2018

100 ORDER, for the reasons stated from the bench, granting in part and denying in part 96 Motion for Protective Order. As discussed during the hearing, the information relating to JD1 that is the subject of this motion shall not be made public without prior approval of the court and that information is only to be used by the defendants for the purpose of this litigation. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 02/09/2018. (wgar, ) (Entered: 02/09/2018)

02/09/2018

101 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding 30(b)(6) Deposition by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 02/09/2018)

02/09/2018

102 Memorandum in Support re 101 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding 30(b)(6) Deposition filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray.

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (Combined))(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 02/09/2018)

02/09/2018

103 Notice of Hearing Date set for 2/16/18 re 101 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding 30(b)(6) Deposition (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 02/09/2018)

02/09/2018

104 MOTION for Extension of Time for the Limited Purpose of Plaintiff Taking 30(b)(6) Deposition by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 02/09/2018)

02/09/2018 105 Notice of Hearing Date set for 2/16/18 re 104 MOTION for Extension of Time for the Limited Purpose of Plaintiff Taking 30(b)(6) Deposition (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 02/09/2018)

02/09/2018

106 MOTION to Compel the Production of Documents, MOTION to Strike Testmony by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 02/09/2018)

02/09/2018

107 Memorandum in Support re 106 MOTION to Compel the Production of Documents MOTION to Strike Testmony filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 02/09/2018)

02/09/2018 108 Notice of Hearing Date set for 2/16/18 re 106 MOTION to Compel the Production of Documents MOTION to Strike Testmony (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 02/09/2018)

02/09/2018

109 MOTION for Protective Order by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Combined Exhibits)(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 02/09/2018)

02/09/2018 110 Notice of Hearing Date set for 02/16/2018 re 109 MOTION for Protective Order (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 02/09/2018)

02/12/2018

Set Deadlines as to 106 MOTION to Compel the Production of Documents MOTION to Strike Testmony, 109 MOTION for Protective Order , 104 MOTION for Extension of Time for the Limited Purpose of Plaintiff Taking 30(b)(6) Deposition, 101 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding 30(b)(6) Deposition. Motion Hearing set for 2/16/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (clar, ) (Entered: 02/12/2018)

02/12/2018

MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge: Anderson. 101 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding 30(b)(6) Deposition, 104 MOTION for Extension of Time for the Limited Purpose of Plaintiff Taking 30(b)(6) Deposition, 109 MOTION for Protective Order , 106 MOTION to Compel the Production of Documents MOTION to Strike Testmony (clar, ) (Entered: 02/12/2018)

02/12/2018

111 TRANSCRIPT of motion hearing held on 2-9-2018 before Mag. Judge Anderson. Court reporter Norman Linnell, telephone number 703-5494626. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have thirty(30) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vaed.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the court reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 3/14/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/16/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/14/2018.(linnell, norman) (Entered: 02/12/2018)

02/14/2018

112 RESPONSE in Opposition re 101 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding 30(b)(6) Deposition filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 02/14/2018)

02/14/2018

113 RESPONSE in Opposition re 106 MOTION to Compel the Production of Documents MOTION to Strike Testmony filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel,

Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 02/14/2018)

02/14/2018

114 Memorandum in Opposition re 109 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 02/14/2018)

02/14/2018

115 RESPONSE in Opposition re 104 MOTION for Extension of Time for the Limited Purpose of Plaintiff Taking 30(b)(6) Deposition filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 02/14/2018)

02/15/2018

116 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery as to Noticed Depositions by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 02/15/2018)

02/15/2018

117 REPLY to Response to Motion re 101 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding 30(b)(6) Deposition filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 02/15/2018)

02/15/2018

118 REPLY to Response to Motion re 106 MOTION to Compel the Production of Documents MOTION to Strike Testmony filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 02/15/2018)

02/16/2018

119 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson:Motion Hearing held on 2/16/2018 re 101 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding 30(b)(6) Deposition filed by David Pekoske, Deborah Moore, Christopher Wray, Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Kevin K. McAleenan, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Charles H. Kable, 104 MOTION for Extension of Time for the Limited

Purpose of Plaintiff Taking 30(b)(6) Deposition filed by David Pekoske, Deborah Moore, Christopher Wray, Timothy P. Groh, Kelli Ann Burriesci, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Kevin K. McAleenan, Charles H. Kable, 116 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery as to Noticed Depositions filed by David Pekoske, Deborah Moore, Christopher Wray, Timothy P. Groh, Kelli Ann Burriesci, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Kevin K. McAleenan, Charles H. Kable, 109 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Wael Hakmeh, Mark Amri, Shahir Anwar, Murat Frljuckic, Michael Edmund Coleman, Mahmoud Eraqi, Yaseen Kadura, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas, Ausama Elhuzayel, John Doe No. 2, Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Baby Doe 2, Saleem Ali, Muhammad Yahya Khan, John Doe No. 1, Samir Anwar, Zuhair ElShwehdi, John Doe No. 3, Hassan Fares, John Doe No. 4, Anas Elhady, Ibrahim Awad, Hassan Shibly, 106 MOTION to Compel the Production of Documents MOTION to Strike Testmony filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Charles H. Kable, David Pekoske, Deborah Moore, Timothy P. Groh, Kevin K. McAleenan. Appearances of counsel for plaintiffs and defendants. Motions argued and 101 MOTION for Protective Order - GRANTED; 104 MOTION for Extension of Time - DENIED as MOOT; 106 MOTION to Compel - DENIED; MOTION to Strike - GRANTED; 109 MOTION for Protective Order - DENIED; 116 MOTION for Extension of Time GRANTED. Orders to follow. (Tape #FTR.)(wgar, ) (Entered: 02/20/2018)

02/16/2018 120 ORDER, for the reasons stated from the bench, denying 109 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 02/16/2018. (wgar, ) (Entered: 02/20/2018)

02/16/2018

121 ORDER, for the reasons stated from the bench, granting 101 Motion for Protective Order. ORDERED as to limiting the topics noticed for the Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition to the eight (8) topics proposed by defendants. Additionally, plaintiffs are given leave to serve one additional interrogatory regarding the legal authority that the Terrorist Screening Center relies upon to operate and disseminate the Terrorist Screening Database. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 02/16/2018. (wgar, ) (Entered: 02/20/2018)

02/16/2018 122 ORDER, for the reasons stated from the bench, denying 106 Motion to Compel; granting 106 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 02/16/2018. (wgar, ) (Entered: 02/20/2018)

02/16/2018 123 ORDER, for the reasons stated from the bench, denying as moot 104 Motion for Extension of Time to File; granting 116 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. ORDERED that the

discovery deadline is extended until March 23, 2018 for the limited purpose of conducting additional depositions which have already been noticed as of the date of this order. The parties shall still appear before the District Judge at 10:00 a.m. on March 15, 2018 for the final pretrial conference. The Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) disclosures will no longer be due by March 15, 2018, and the District Judge will set a new date for those disclosures to be due at the final pretrial conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 02/16/2018. (wgar, ) (Entered: 02/20/2018)

02/25/2018

124 TRANSCRIPT of motions hearing held on 2-16-2018 before Mag. Judge Anderson. Court reporter Norman Linnell, telephone number 703-549-4626. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have thirty(30) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vaed.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the court reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 3/27/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/27/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/29/2018.(linnell, norman) (Entered: 02/25/2018)

03/09/2018

125 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Take FBI 30(b)(6) Deposition by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/09/2018)

03/09/2018 126 Notice of Hearing Date set for 3/16/18 re 125 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Take FBI 30(b)(6) Deposition (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/09/2018)

03/09/2018

127 MOTION for Protective Order to Limit Topics of Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/09/2018)

03/09/2018

128 Memorandum in Support re 130 MOTION for Protective Order to Limit Topics of Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray.

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (Combined))(Wetzler, Lauren) Modified docket entry relationship on 3/12/2018 (clar, ). (Entered: 03/09/2018)

03/09/2018

129 Notice of Hearing Date set for 3/16/18 re 130 MOTION for Protective Order to Limit Topics of Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions, 128 Memorandum in Support, (Wetzler, Lauren) Modified docket entry relationship on 3/12/2018 (clar, ). (Entered: 03/09/2018)

03/09/2018

130 MOTION for Protective Order to Limit Topics of 30(b)(6) Depositions (CORRECTED) by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/09/2018)

03/12/2018

131 ORDER granting 125 Motion for Extension of Time to File. ORDERED that the discovery period in this action is extended for the limited and exclusive purpose of allowing Plaintiffs to depose Federal Bureau of Investigation Deputy Assistant Director Matthew DeSarno on April 9, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 03/12/2018. (wgar, ) (Entered: 03/12/2018)

03/12/2018

Set Deadlines as to 130 MOTION for Protective Order to Limit Topics of 30(b)(6) Depositions (CORRECTED). Motion Hearing set for 3/16/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (clar, ) (Entered: 03/12/2018)

03/12/2018

MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge: Anderson. 130 MOTION for Protective Order to Limit Topics of 30(b)(6) Depositions (CORRECTED) (clar, ) (Entered: 03/12/2018)

03/12/2018

132 Motion to appear Pro Hac Vice by Carolyn Homer and Certification of Local Counsel Gadeir Abbas Filing fee $ 75, receipt number 04225985556. by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/12/2018)

03/12/2018

133 Motion to appear Pro Hac Vice by Ahmed Mohamed and Certification of Local Counsel Gadeir Abbas Filing fee $ 75, receipt number 04225985568. by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat

Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/12/2018)

03/14/2018 134 ORDER granting 132 Motion for Pro hac vice for Carolyn Myrle Homer. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 3/14/2018. (acha, ) (Entered: 03/14/2018)

03/14/2018

135 ORDER granting 133 Motion for Pro hac vice for Ahmed Mohsen Mohamed. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 3/14/2018. (acha, ) (Entered: 03/14/2018)

03/14/2018

136 MOTION Set Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule , MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/14/2018)

03/14/2018

137 RESPONSE in Opposition re 130 MOTION for Protective Order to Limit Topics of 30(b)(6) Depositions (CORRECTED) filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/14/2018)

03/14/2018

138 Memorandum in Support re 136 MOTION Set Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/14/2018)

03/15/2018

139 MOTION to Compel by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Combined)(Abbas, Gadeir) Modified on 4/17/2018 to remove term date (acha, ). (Entered: 03/15/2018)

03/15/2018

140 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Anthony J Trenga: Final Pretrial Conference held on 3/15/2018. Appearances of Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant. The Court orders that all Summary Judgment Motions are to be filed by 5/14/2018; oppositions by 6/13/2018; and replies to be filed by 6/27/2018. SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING set for 7/10/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 701 before District Judge Anthony J Trenga. JURY TRIAL set for 8/6/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 701 before District Judge Anthony J Trenga. STATUS CONFERENCE before Trial set for 8/6/2018 at 9:00 AM before District Judge Anthony J Trenga, to address any preliminary matters. (Court Reporter n/a.)(jall) (Entered: 03/15/2018)

03/15/2018

141 REPLY to Response to Motion re 130 MOTION for Protective Order to Limit Topics of 30(b)(6) Depositions (CORRECTED) filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 16)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/15/2018)

03/15/2018

142 MOTION to Strike 139 MOTION to Compel by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/15/2018)

03/15/2018

143 Memorandum in Support re 142 MOTION to Strike 139 MOTION to Compel filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/15/2018)

03/15/2018 144 Notice of Hearing Date set for 3/23/18 re 143 Memorandum in Support, 142 MOTION to Strike 139 MOTION to Compel (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/15/2018)

03/16/2018

Set Deadlines as to 142 MOTION to Strike 139 MOTION to Compel . Motion Hearing set for 3/23/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (clar, ) (Entered: 03/16/2018)

03/16/2018 145 Notice of Hearing Date set for 03/23/2018 re 139 MOTION to Compel (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/16/2018)

03/16/2018

MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge: Anderson. 142 MOTION to Strike 139 MOTION to Compel (clar, ) (Entered: 03/16/2018)

03/16/2018

146 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson:Motion Hearing held on 3/16/2018 re 130 MOTION for Protective Order to Limit Topics of 30(b)(6) Depositions (CORRECTED) filed by David Pekoske, Deborah Moore, Christopher Wray, Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Kevin K. McAleenan, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Charles H. Kable. Appearances of counsel for plaintiffs and defendants. Motion argued and 130 MOTION for Protective Order - GRANTED IN PART/DENIED IN PART. Order to follow. (Tape #FTR.)(wgar, ) (Entered: 03/16/2018)

03/16/2018

147 ORDER, for the reasons stated from the bench, granting in part and denying in part 130 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 03/16/2018. (wgar, ) (Entered: 03/16/2018)

03/16/2018

Notice of Correction re 139 MOTION to Compel . The filing user has been notified to file a Notice of Hearing Date or a Notice of Waiver of Oral Argument and correctly file the motion and memorandum separately. (acha, ) (Entered: 03/16/2018)

03/19/2018

148 TRANSCRIPT of motions hearing held on 3-16-2018 before Mag. Judge Anderson. Court reporter Norman Linnell, telephone number 703-549-4626. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have thirty(30) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vaed.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the court reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 4/18/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/21/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/18/2018.(linnell, norman) (Entered: 03/19/2018)

03/19/2018

149 ORDER- It is hereby ORDERED that defendant's 142 Motion to Strike is denied without prejudice to defendant's ability to argue the delay in opposition to plaintiff's motion to compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 3/19/2018. (acha, ) (Entered: 03/19/2018)

03/19/2018

150 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 139 MOTION to Compel and to Continue Hearing by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher

Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/19/2018)

03/20/2018

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 139 MOTION to Compel . Motion Hearing set for 3/23/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (wgar, ) (Entered: 03/20/2018)

03/20/2018

151 ORDER granting 150 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. The opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel shall be due April 16, 2018, Plaintiff's reply shall be due April 30, 2018, and the hearing shall be continued until May 4, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 03/20/2018. (wgar, ) (Entered: 03/20/2018)

03/20/2018

Reset Deadlines as to 139 MOTION to Compel . Motion Hearing reset for 5/4/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (wgar, ) (Entered: 03/20/2018)

03/23/2018

152 MOTION to Compel Appearance of Three Plaintiffs at Depositions, MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery as to the Three Plaintiffs' Depositions by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/23/2018)

03/23/2018

153 Notice of Hearing Date set for 03/30/18 re 152 MOTION to Compel Appearance of Three Plaintiffs at Depositions MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery as to the Three Plaintiffs' Depositions (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/23/2018)

03/23/2018

154 Memorandum in Support re 152 MOTION to Compel Appearance of Three Plaintiffs at Depositions MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery as to the Three Plaintiffs' Depositions filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (Combined))(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/23/2018)

03/23/2018

155 MOTION for Extension of Time To Conduct JD3's Deposition by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/23/2018)

03/23/2018 156 Notice of Hearing Date set for 03/30/2018 re 155 MOTION for Extension of Time To Conduct JD3's Deposition (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/23/2018)

03/26/2018

Set Deadlines as to 155 MOTION for Extension of Time To Conduct JD3's Deposition, 152 MOTION to Compel Appearance of Three Plaintiffs at Depositions MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery as to the Three Plaintiffs' Depositions. Motion Hearing set for 3/30/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (clar, ) (Entered: 03/26/2018)

03/28/2018

157 RESPONSE to Motion re 155 MOTION for Extension of Time To Conduct JD3's Deposition filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Levenson, Rebecca) (Entered: 03/28/2018)

03/28/2018

158 RESPONSE in Opposition re 152 MOTION to Compel Appearance of Three Plaintiffs at Depositions MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery as to the Three Plaintiffs' Depositions filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/28/2018)

03/29/2018

159 ORDER- It is hereby ORDERED that defendants' 152 motion to compel is granted in part, denied in part and that plaintiffs' 155 motion for an extension of time for the purpose of conducting the deposition of John Doe 3 is granted. John Doe 1 and Mahmoud Eraqi shall file their notice of dismissal with prejudice by no later than April 6, 2018. The hearing scheduled for Friday, March 30, 2018 is cancelled. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 3/29/2018. (See order for further details.) (acha, ) (Entered: 03/29/2018)

04/02/2018

160 Joint MOTION Clarification of Summary Judgment Page Limits by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 04/02/2018)

04/03/2018

161 ORDER- The Court, having reviewed the parties' 160 Motion for Clarification, hereby clarifies that summary judgment briefing page limits shall be extended as requested by the parties. Signed by District

Judge Anthony J Trenga on 04/03/2018. (See order for further details.) (acha, ) (Entered: 04/03/2018)

04/06/2018

162 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 04/06/2018)

04/06/2018

163 Waiver of re 162 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply (Oral Argument Waiver) by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 04/06/2018)

04/06/2018

164 STIPULATION of Dismissal for Mahmoud Eraqi by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 04/06/2018)

04/06/2018

165 STIPULATION of Dismissal for John Doe 1 by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 04/06/2018)

04/13/2018

166 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 04/13/2018)

04/13/2018

167 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery Related to 30(b)(6) Depositions by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 04/13/2018)

04/13/2018 168 Notice of Hearing Date set for 4/20/2018 re 167 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery Related to 30(b)(6) Depositions (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 04/13/2018)

04/13/2018

169 Memorandum in Support re 167 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery Related to 30(b)(6) Depositions filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit s A - I in support of Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Compel)(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 04/13/2018)

04/16/2018

Set Deadlines as to 167 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery Related to 30(b)(6) Depositions. Motion Hearing set for 4/20/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (clar, ) (Entered: 04/16/2018)

04/16/2018

MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge: Anderson. 167 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery Related to 30(b)(6) Depositions (clar, ) (Entered: 04/16/2018)

04/16/2018

170 NOTICE by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas re 169 Memorandum in Support,, 167 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery Related to 30(b)(6) Depositions (Attachments: # 1 Updated Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel Adding FBI Deposition Transcript Page Numbers, # 2 Exhibit D to Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel containing FBI Deposition Excerpts)(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 04/16/2018)

04/16/2018

171 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 167 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery Related to 30(b)(6) Depositions by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 04/16/2018)

04/17/2018 172 ORDER granting 171 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. ORDERED that Defendants shall file a memorandum

in opposition to Plaintiffs' pending April 13 Motion to Compel by no later than April 27, 2018; ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file a reply memorandum, if any, by no later than May 3, 2018, in support of this same motion; ORDERED that the hearing on the plaintiffs' second motion to compel (Docket no. 167) is rescheduled from April 20, 2018 to May 11, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 04/17/2018. (wgar, ) (Entered: 04/17/2018)

04/17/2018

Reset Deadlines as to 167 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery Related to 30(b)(6) Depositions. Motion Hearing reset for 5/11/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (wgar, ) (Entered: 04/17/2018)

04/17/2018

173 ORDER- The Court, having reviewed the parties' 166 Joint Motion to Extend Page Limits for Motion to Compel Briefing, hereby grants the motion for good cause shown. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants shall have leave to file a memorandum of no more than 45 pages in opposition to Plaintiff's pending Motion to Compel; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall have leave to file a reply memorandum of no more than 35 pages in support of this same motion. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 04/17/2018. (acha, ) (Entered: 04/17/2018)

04/17/2018

174 ORDER- It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's 162 Motion be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. The opposition to Plaintiff's 139 Motion to Compel shall be due April 23, 2018, the reply shall be due May 3, 2018, and the hearing on the Motion to Compel, currently scheduled before Judge Anderson on May 4, 2018 at 10:00a.m. be, and the same hereby is, CONTINUED to Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 2:00p.m. before the undersigned. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 04/17/2018. (acha, ) Modified on 4/17/2018 to add text (acha, ). (Entered: 04/17/2018)

04/17/2018

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 139 MOTION to Compel . Motion Hearing set for 5/8/2018 at 02:00 PM in Alexandria Courtroom 701 before District Judge Anthony J Trenga. (acha, ) (Entered: 04/17/2018)

04/20/2018

175 MOTION for Discovery re Punitive Screening During Amri's Travel to his Deposition by Mark Amri. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 04/20/2018)

04/20/2018 176 Notice of Hearing Date re 175 MOTION for Discovery re Punitive Screening During Amri's Travel to his Deposition (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 04/20/2018)

04/23/2018

Set Deadlines as to 175 MOTION for Discovery re Punitive Screening During Amri's Travel to his Deposition. Motion Hearing set for 4/27/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (clar, ) (Entered: 04/23/2018)

04/23/2018

MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge: Anderson. 175 MOTION for Discovery re Punitive Screening During Amri's Travel to his Deposition (clar, ) (Entered: 04/23/2018)

04/23/2018

177 ORDER- Accordingly, the hearing on plaintiff's 175 motion for limited discovery is continued to 10:00 a.m. on Friday, May 4, 2018, with the opposition due by April 27, 2018, and the reply due by May 2, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 04/23/2018. (acha, ) (Entered: 04/23/2018)

04/23/2018

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 175 MOTION for Discovery re Punitive Screening During Amri's Travel to his Deposition. Replies due by 5/2/2018. Motion Hearing set for 5/4/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. Opposition due by 4/27/2018. (acha, ) Modified on 4/26/2018 to correct entry (acha, ). (Entered: 04/23/2018)

04/23/2018

178 RESPONSE in Opposition re 139 MOTION to Compel filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21, # 23 Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit 23, # 25 Exhibit 24)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 04/23/2018)

04/23/2018

179 NOTICE by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray re 178 Response in Opposition to Motion,, of Lodging Ex Parte, In Camera Declarations (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 04/23/2018)

04/25/2018

180 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages as to Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Compel by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 04/25/2018)

04/26/2018

181 ORDER- With respect to the jury trial in this case scheduled to begin on August 6, 2018, the Court orders as follows: On Monday, August 6, 2018 , the Court will convene at 9:00 a.m. to address any preliminary matters, and trial will begin with jury selection at 10:00 a.m. Thereafter, beginning on Tuesday, August 7, 2018 and through the remainder of trial, the Court will begin trial at 9:30 a.m., although counsel should be present by 9:00 a.m., unless otherwise informed by the Court. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 4/26/2018 (See order for further details). (acha, ) (Entered: 04/26/2018)

04/26/2018

182 ORDER- The Court, having reviewed the parties' Joint Motion to Extend Page Limits for Opposition and Reply to Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Compel, hereby GRANTS in part the motion for good cause shown. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' opposition shall be no more than 40 pages, and Plaintiffs' reply brief shall be no more than 30 pages. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 04/26/2018. (acha, ) (Entered: 04/26/2018)

04/26/2018

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 175 MOTION for Discovery re Punitive Screening During Amri's Travel to his Deposition. Motion Hearing set for 5/4/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. Opposition due by 4/27/2018. (acha, ) (Entered: 04/26/2018)

04/27/2018 183 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Mahmoud Eraqi (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 04/27/2018)

04/27/2018 184 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by John Doe No. 1 (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 04/27/2018)

04/27/2018

185 Consent MOTION for Extension to Reset the 5/8 and 5/11 Hearings by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 04/27/2018)

04/27/2018

186 MOTION for Extension to File for Summary Judgment by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 04/27/2018)

04/27/2018

187 Opposition to 175 MOTION for Discovery re Punitive Screening During Amri's Travel to his Deposition filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 04/27/2018)

04/27/2018

188 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time for Summary Judgment Briefing by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 04/27/2018)

04/27/2018

189 Notice of Hearing Date set for 05/04/2018 re 186 MOTION for Extension to File for Summary Judgment (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 04/27/2018)

04/27/2018

190 Waiver of re 188 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time for Summary Judgment Briefing (Waiver of Oral Argument) by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 04/27/2018)

04/27/2018

191 NOTICE by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray of Submission of Declarations In Camera, Ex Parte (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 04/27/2018)

04/27/2018

192 MOTION for Discovery re Experts and NCTC Deposition on Watchlisting Advisory Council by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 04/27/2018)

04/27/2018

193 Notice of Hearing Date set for 05/04/2018 re 192 MOTION for Discovery re Experts and NCTC Deposition on Watchlisting Advisory Council (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 04/27/2018)

04/27/2018 194 So Ordered re 184 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by John Doe No. 1. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 04/27/2018. (See order for further details). (acha, ) (Entered: 04/27/2018)

04/27/2018 195 So Ordered re 183 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Mahmoud Eraqi. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 4/27/2018. (See order for further details). (acha, ) (Entered: 04/27/2018)

04/27/2018

196 Opposition to 167 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery Related to 30(b)(6) Depositions filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 04/27/2018)

04/30/2018

Set Deadlines as to 186 MOTION for Extension to File for Summary Judgment. Motion Hearing set for 5/4/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 701 before District Judge Anthony J Trenga. (clar, ) (Entered: 04/30/2018)

04/30/2018

Set Deadlines as to 192 MOTION for Discovery re Experts and NCTC Deposition on Watchlisting Advisory Council. Motion Hearing set for 5/4/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (clar, ) (Entered: 04/30/2018)

04/30/2018

MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge: Anderson. 192 MOTION for Discovery re Experts and NCTC Deposition on Watchlisting Advisory Council (clar, ) (Entered: 04/30/2018)

04/30/2018

Notice of Correction re 185 Consent MOTION for Extension to Reset the 5/8 and 5/11 Hearings. The filing user has been notified to file a Notice of Hearing Date or a Notice of Waiver of Oral Argument. (acha, ) (Entered: 04/30/2018)

04/30/2018

197 ORDER - At the request of the plaintiffs and with the consent of the defendants, the hearing on plaintiffs' second motion to compel (Docket no. 167) is continued from Friday, May 11, 2018 to 10:00 a.m. on Friday, May 18, 2018 . Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 04/30/2018. (wgar, ) (Entered: 04/30/2018)

04/30/2018

Reset Deadlines as to 167 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery Related to 30(b)(6) Depositions. Motion Hearing reset for 5/18/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (wgar, ) (Entered: 05/01/2018)

04/30/2018

198 ORDER- It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Consent Motion to Reset Hearing Dates Regarding the Pending Motions to Compel [Doc. No. 185] be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: (1) the hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [Doc. No. 139] be, and the same hereby is, CONTINUED from Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. to Friday, May 18, 2018 at 10:00a.m.; and (2) the Motion is otherwise DENIED as moot. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 04/30/2018. (See order for further details). (acha, ) (Entered: 05/01/2018)

04/30/2018

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 139 MOTION to Compel . Motion Hearing set for 5/18/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 701 before District Judge Anthony J Trenga. (acha, ) (Entered: 05/01/2018)

04/30/2018

199 ORDER- It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's 186 Motion to Extend the Summary Judgment Deadline be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED; and the parties shall file their motions for summary judgment within thirty (30) days after the Court's ruling on the pending Motions to Compel Doc. Nos. 139 , 167 ; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants' 188 Consent Motion to Extend Deadline for Parties to File Summary Judgment Motions be, and the same hereby is, DENIED as moot; and it is further ORDERED that the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend the Summary Judgment Deadline Doc. No. 186 , currently scheduled for Friday, May 4, 2018 at 10:00 be, and the same hereby is, CANCELLED. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 04/30/2018. (acha, ) (Entered: 05/01/2018)

05/01/2018

200 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 139 MOTION to Compel , 167 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery Related to 30(b)(6) Depositions by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 05/01/2018)

05/01/2018

201 Waiver of re 200 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 139 MOTION to Compel , 167 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery Related to 30(b)(6) Depositions (Waiver of Oral Argument) by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen

Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 05/01/2018)

05/02/2018

202 ORDER granting 200 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Plaintiffs shall file their replies no later than May 8, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 05/02/2018. (wgar, ) (Entered: 05/02/2018)

05/02/2018

203 RESPONSE in Opposition re 192 MOTION for Discovery re Experts and NCTC Deposition on Watchlisting Advisory Council filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 05/02/2018)

05/02/2018 204 REPLY to Response to Motion re 175 MOTION for Discovery re Punitive Screening During Amri's Travel to his Deposition filed by Mark Amri. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 05/02/2018)

05/04/2018

205 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson:Motion Hearing held on 5/4/2018 re 192 MOTION for Discovery re Experts and NCTC Deposition on Watchlisting Advisory Council filed by Wael Hakmeh, Mark Amri, Shahir Anwar, Murat Frljuckic, Michael Edmund Coleman, Mahmoud Eraqi, Yaseen Kadura, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas, Ausama Elhuzayel, John Doe No. 2, Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Baby Doe 2, Saleem Ali, Muhammad Yahya Khan, John Doe No. 1, Samir Anwar, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, John Doe No. 3, Hassan Fares, John Doe No. 4, Anas Elhady, Ibrahim Awad, Hassan Shibly, 175 MOTION for Discovery re Punitive Screening During Amri's Travel to his Deposition filed by Mark Amri. Appearances of counsel for plaintiffs and defendants. Motions argued and 175 MOTION for Discovery DENIED; 192 MOTION for Discovery - DENIED without prejudice. Orders to follow. (Tape #FTR.)(wgar, ) (Entered: 05/04/2018)

05/04/2018

206 ORDER, for the reasons stated from the bench, denying 175 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 05/04/2018. (wgar, ) (Entered: 05/04/2018)

05/04/2018 207 ORDER, for the reasons stated from the bench, denying without prejudice 192 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 05/04/2018. (wgar, ) (Entered: 05/04/2018)

05/08/2018 208 Reply to Motion re 139 MOTION to Compel Written Discovery filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali,

Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit s A - R in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply to their First Motion to Compel)(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 05/08/2018)

05/08/2018

209 Reply to Motion re 167 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery Related to 30(b)(6) Depositions (includes Reply Exhibit A) filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 05/08/2018)

05/15/2018

210 Joint MOTION to Vacate Summary Judgment Hearing and Trial Date by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 05/15/2018)

05/17/2018

211 TRANSCRIPT of motions hearing held on 5-4-2018 before Mag. Judge Anderson. Court reporter Norman Linnell, telephone number 703-5494626. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have thirty(30) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vaed.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the court reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 6/18/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/17/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/15/2018.(linnell, norman) (Entered: 05/17/2018)

05/18/2018

212 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson:Motion Hearing held on 5/18/2018 re 167 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery Related to 30(b)(6) Depositions filed by Wael Hakmeh, Mark Amri, Shahir Anwar, Murat Frljuckic, Michael Edmund Coleman, Yaseen Kadura, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas, Ausama Elhuzayel, John Doe No. 2, Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Baby Doe 2, Muhammad Yahya Khan,

Samir Anwar, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, John Doe No. 3, Hassan Fares, John Doe No. 4, Anas Elhady, Ibrahim Awad, Hassan Shibly. Appearances of counsel for plaintiffs and defendants. Motion argued and 167 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery Related to 30(b)(6) Depositions GRANTED IN PART/DENIED IN PART and TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT IN PART. Order to follow. (Tape #FTR.)(wgar, ) (Entered: 05/18/2018)

05/18/2018

213 ORDER, for the reasons stated from the bench, granting in part and denying in part, taking under advisement in part 167 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 05/18/2018. (wgar, ) (Entered: 05/18/2018)

05/18/2018

214 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Anthony J Trenga: Motion Hearing held on 5/18/2018 re 139 MOTION to Compel filed by Wael Hakmeh, Mark Amri, Shahir Anwar, Murat Frljuckic, Michael Edmund Coleman, Mahmoud Eraqi, Yaseen Kadura, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas, Ausama Elhuzayel, John Doe No. 2, Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Baby Doe 2, Saleem Ali, Muhammad Yahya Khan, John Doe No. 1, Samir Anwar, Zuhair ElShwehdi, John Doe No. 3, Hassan Fares, John Doe No. 4, Anas Elhady, Ibrahim Awad, Hassan Shibly. Appearances of Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants. Motion argued and TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. The Court orders the defendants to provide the documents in Exhibit A redacted of any information they believe is privileged or classified. The Court also orders the defendants produce for the Courts in camera ex parte inspection, these documents. The Court is not going to require, even in in the ex parte submission, the classified names of the countries that are part of the sharing agreements be provided. Those can be redacted even in the Courts copy. The Court will review those and then proceed from there. (Court Reporter R. Montgomery.) (jall) (Entered: 05/21/2018)

05/21/2018

215 TRANSCRIPT of motions hearing held on 5-18-2018 before Mag. Judge Anderson. Court reporter Norman Linnell, telephone number 703-549-4626. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have thirty(30) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vaed.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the court reporter before the

deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 6/20/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/23/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/20/2018.(linnell, norman) (Entered: 05/21/2018)

05/21/2018

216 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 5/18/18 ( 167 Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Compel), before Judge Anthony J. Trenga, Court Reporter/Transcriber Rhonda Montgomery, Telephone number 703299-4599. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have thirty(30) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vaed.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the court reporter/transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 6/20/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/23/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/20/2018.(montgomery, rhonda) (Entered: 05/21/2018)

05/25/2018

217 ORDER that the Court GRANTS the parties' 210 Joint Motion to Vacate Oral Argument and Trial Dates. Both the (1) hearing date of 07/10/18, on the parties' anticipated cross-motions for summary judgment, and (2) the trial date of 08/06/18, are hereby VACATED. The Court will reschedule these dates at such time in the future as the schedule for the briefing of the parties' summary judgment motions is firmly established. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 05/25/18. (pmil, ) (Entered: 05/25/2018)

05/29/2018

218 NOTICE by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray of Lodging Documents for Ex Parte, In Camera Review (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 05/29/2018)

06/08/2018

219 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 06/08/2018)

07/13/2018

220 Third MOTION to Compel re: Watchlisting Advisory Council documents by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas

Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/13/2018 221 Notice of Hearing Date re 220 Third MOTION to Compel re: Watchlisting Advisory Council documents (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/13/2018

222 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/13/2018

223 Memorandum in Support re 220 Third MOTION to Compel re: Watchlisting Advisory Council documents filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit s A - E in support of Plaintiffs' Third Motion to Compel)(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/13/2018

224 NOTICE by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray (Withdrawal of Law Enforcement Privilege Assertion as to TSCD0003) (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/13/2018

225 NOTICE by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray of Lodging Document for Ex Parte, In Camera Review (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/16/2018

Set Deadlines as to 220 Third MOTION to Compel re: Watchlisting Advisory Council documents. Motion Hearing set for 8/17/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (clar, ) (Entered: 07/16/2018)

07/16/2018

MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge: Anderson. 220 Third MOTION to Compel re: Watchlisting Advisory Council documents (clar, ) (Entered: 07/16/2018)

07/30/2018 226 ORDERED that Defendants shall file their opposition to Plaintiffs' Third Motion to Compel on or before 8/8/2018; that Plaintiffs shall file

their reply memorandum in support of the same on or before 8/15/2015; that the Court has rescheduled the hearing on Plaintiffs' Third Motion to Compel to 8/24/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 7/30/2018. (rban, ) (Entered: 07/30/2018)

07/30/2018

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 220 Third MOTION to Compel re: Watchlisting Advisory Council documents. Responses due by 8/8/2018 Replies due by 8/15/2018. Motion Hearing set for 8/24/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (rban, ) (Entered: 07/30/2018)

08/01/2018

227 MOTION to Compel (Fourth) re: TSA's Quiet Skies Program by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 08/01/2018)

08/01/2018 228 Notice of Hearing Date re 227 MOTION to Compel (Fourth) re: TSA's Quiet Skies Program (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 08/01/2018)

08/01/2018

229 Memorandum in Support re 227 MOTION to Compel (Fourth) re: TSA's Quiet Skies Program filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-J in support of Fourth Motion to Compel re: Quiet Skies)(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 08/01/2018)

08/02/2018

Set Deadlines as to 227 MOTION to Compel (Fourth) re: TSA's Quiet Skies Program. Motion Hearing set for 8/24/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (clar, ) (Entered: 08/02/2018)

08/02/2018

MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge: Anderson. 227 MOTION to Compel (Fourth) re: TSA's Quiet Skies Program (clar, ) (Entered: 08/02/2018)

08/08/2018

230 NOTICE by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray (of Lodging Declaration for In Camera, Ex Parte Review) (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 08/08/2018)

08/08/2018

231 RESPONSE in Opposition re 220 Third MOTION to Compel re: Watchlisting Advisory Council documents filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Redacted Groh Declaration))(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 08/08/2018)

08/15/2018

232 NOTICE by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray (of Lodging Declaration for In Camera, Ex Parte Review) (Levenson, Rebecca) (Entered: 08/15/2018)

08/15/2018

233 Consent MOTION for Leave to File a Redacted Public Version of the Froemling Declaration on or Before August 17, 2018 by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Levenson, Rebecca) (Entered: 08/15/2018)

08/15/2018

234 Memorandum in Opposition re 227 MOTION to Compel (Fourth) re: TSA's Quiet Skies Program filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6)(Levenson, Rebecca) (Entered: 08/15/2018)

08/15/2018

235 REPLY to Response to Motion re 220 Third MOTION to Compel re: Watchlisting Advisory Council documents filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 08/15/2018)

08/16/2018

236 ORDER granting 233 Consent Motion for Leave to File a RedactedPublic Version of the Froemiing Declaration. Defts shall file a redacted public version of the Declaration of Hao-Y Froemling, originally submitted to the Court on 08/15/18 in camera and ex parte, on or before 5:00 p.m. on 08/17/18; Pltf's shall file a reply memorandum in support of their Fourth Motion to Compel on or before 08/22/18. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 08/16/18. (pmil, ) (Entered: 08/16/2018)

08/16/2018 237 REPLY to Response to Motion re 220 Third MOTION to Compel re: Watchlisting Advisory Council documents [Corrected] filed by Osama

Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 08/16/2018)

08/16/2018

238 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Briefing re: First Motion to Compel and Redacted Documents by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 08/16/2018)

08/17/2018

239 NOTICE by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray of Filing of Redacted Declaration (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Levenson, Rebecca) (Entered: 08/17/2018)

08/20/2018

240 ORDER re Supplemental Briefing Re: Defendants' Redactions on Documents Sought by Plaintiffs' First Motion to Compel. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 8/20/2018. (rban, ) (Entered: 08/21/2018)

08/21/2018

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 238 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Briefing re: First Motion to Compel and Redacted Documents. Motion Hearing set for 9/21/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 701 before District Judge Anthony J Trenga. (rban, ) (Entered: 08/21/2018)

08/21/2018

241 NOTICE by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray of Lodging Documents for Ex Parte, In Camera Review (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 08/21/2018)

08/22/2018

242 REPLY to Response to Motion re 227 MOTION to Compel (Fourth) re: TSA's Quiet Skies Program filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat

Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-G in support of MTC4 Reply re: Quiet Skies)(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 08/22/2018)

08/24/2018

243 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson:Motion Hearing held on 8/24/2018 re 227 MOTION to Compel (Fourth) re: TSA's Quiet Skies Program filed by Wael Hakmeh, Mark Amri, Shahir Anwar, Murat Frljuckic, Michael Edmund Coleman, Yaseen Kadura, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas, Ausama Elhuzayel, John Doe No. 2, Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Baby Doe 2, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Samir Anwar, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, John Doe No. 3, Hassan Fares, John Doe No. 4, Anas Elhady, Ibrahim Awad, Hassan Shibly, 220 Third MOTION to Compel re: Watchlisting Advisory Council documents filed by Wael Hakmeh, Mark Amri, Shahir Anwar, Murat Frljuckic, Michael Edmund Coleman, Yaseen Kadura, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas, Ausama Elhuzayel, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Osama Hussein Ahmed, John Doe No. 2, Baby Doe 2, Saleem Ali, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Samir Anwar, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, John Doe No. 3, Hassan Fares, John Doe No. 4, Anas Elhady, Ibrahim Awad, Hassan Shibly. Appearances of counsel for plaintiffs and defendants. Motions argued and 220 Third MOTION to Compel TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT; 227 MOTION to Compel (Fourth) GRANTED IN PART/DENIED IN PART. Orders to follow. (Tape #FTR.)(wgar, ) (Entered: 08/24/2018)

08/24/2018 244 ORDER, for the reasons stated from the bench, taking under advisement 220 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 08/24/2018. (wgar, ) (Entered: 08/24/2018)

08/24/2018

245 ORDER, for the reasons stated from the bench, granting in part and denying in part 227 Motion to Compel. Plaintiffs are permitted to take a two-hour deposition of the TSA to ask any follow-up questions based on the disclosures contained in the Declaration of Hao-Y Tran Froemling (Docket no. 239-1). The motion is otherwise denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 08/24/2018. (wgar, ) (Entered: 08/24/2018)

08/30/2018

246 TRANSCRIPT of motions hearing held on 8-24-2018 before Mag. Judge Anderson. Court Reporter Norman Linnell, telephone number 703-549-4626. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have thirty(30) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made

remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vaed.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the court reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 10/1/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/30/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/28/2018.(linnell, norman) (Entered: 08/30/2018)

09/04/2018

247 Consent MOTION for Extension of Supplemental Briefing Deadlines Regarding Redacted Documents by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 09/04/2018)

09/04/2018

248 Waiver of re 247 Consent MOTION for Extension of Supplemental Briefing Deadlines Regarding Redacted Documents (Oral Argument Waiver) by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 09/04/2018)

09/05/2018

Notice of Correction re 247 Consent MOTION for Extension of Supplemental Briefing Deadlines Regarding Redacted Documents. The filer has been notified to file a proposed order. (acha, ) (Entered: 09/05/2018)

09/05/2018

249 NOTICE by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas re 247 Consent MOTION for Extension of Supplemental Briefing Deadlines Regarding Redacted Documents, Notice of Correction (Filing of Proposed Order) (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Extension of Supplemental Briefing deadlines)(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 09/05/2018)

09/05/2018

250 ORDER- It is hereby ORDERED that the parties' 247 Consent Motion to Extend Deadlines for Supplemental Briefing Re: Defendants' Redactions on Documents Sought by Plaintiffs' First Motion to Compel be and the same hereby is, GRANTED, together with all deadlines referred to therein; and it is further ORDERED that a hearing on the supplemental briefing currently scheduled for September 21, 2018, be and the same hereby is, CONTINUED to Friday, September 28, 2018 at 10:00a.m.Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 9/5/2018. (See order for further details). (acha, ) (Entered: 09/05/2018)

09/05/2018

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 238 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Briefing re: First Motion to Compel and Redacted Documents. Motion Hearing set for 9/28/2018 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 701 before District Judge Anthony J Trenga. (acha, ) (Entered: 09/05/2018)

09/05/2018

251 NOTICE by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen of Filing Supplemental Declaration in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Third Motion to Compel (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 09/05/2018)

09/10/2018 252 ORDER- It is hereby OREDERED that 220 plaintiff's Motion to Compel is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 9/10/2018. (See order for further details). (acha, ) (Entered: 09/10/2018)

09/11/2018

253 Memorandum in Support re 247 Consent MOTION for Extension of Supplemental Briefing Deadlines Regarding Redacted Documents, 238 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Briefing re: First Motion to Compel and Redacted Documents, 139 MOTION to Compel (First) filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Fairly and Huber Re Stats, # 2 TSC Declaration of Groh re Arrest Encounters, # 3 Index of Redacted Documents In Dispute with Supplemental Exhibit Numbers, # 4 Exhibit Supplemental Exhibits 1-3, # 5 Supplemental Exhibits 4-5, # 6 Supplemental Exhibits 6-10, # 7 Supplemental Exhibits 11-15, # 8 Supplemental Exhibits 1620, # 9 Supplemental Exhibits 21-26, # 10 Supplemental Exhibit 27, # 11 Supplemental Exhibits 28-30, # 12 Supplemental Exhibits 31-32, # 13 Supplemental Exhibits 33-35)(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 09/11/2018)

09/25/2018

254 Response to 253 Memorandum in Support,,,,, filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 09/25/2018)

09/28/2018

255 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Anthony J Trenga: Motion Hearing held on 9/28/2018 re 238 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Briefing re: First Motion to Compel and Redacted Documents filed by Wael Hakmeh, Mark Amri, Shahir Anwar, Murat Frljuckic, Michael Edmund Coleman, Yaseen Kadura, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas, Ausama Elhuzayel, John Doe No. 2, Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Baby Doe 2, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Samir Anwar, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, John Doe No. 3, Hassan Fares, John Doe No. 4, Anas Elhady, Ibrahim Awad, Hassan Shibly. Counsel enter their appearances and present arguments. The Court has taken the motion under advisement. Order to follow. (Court Reporter R. Montgomery.) (dzir) Modified on 9/28/2018 (dzir, ). (Entered: 09/28/2018)

10/04/2018

256 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 9/28/18, before Judge Anthony J. Trenga, Court Reporter/Transcriber Rhonda Montgomery, Telephone number 703-299-4599. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have thirty(30) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vaed.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the court reporter/transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 11/5/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/4/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/2/2019.(montgomery, rhonda) (Entered: 10/04/2018)

10/12/2018

257 NOTICE by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray re 254 Response, (Attachments: # 1 Groh Declaration)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 10/12/2018)

01/04/2019 258 ORDER- It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's First Motion to Compel Doc. 139 be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED to the extent

that within 14 days of this order, Defendant the Terrorist Screening Center shall provide a supplemental answer to Plaintiff's Interrogatory Number 30; and the Motion is otherwise DENIED without prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that the parties shall file cross motions for summary judgment on or before Monday, February 4, 2019, with subsequent briefing in accordance with the Court's Local Rules, and that a hearing on any summary judgment motions filed shall take place on March 14, 2019 at 10 a.m. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 1/4/2019. (See order for further details). (acha, ) (Entered: 01/04/2019)

01/08/2019

259 Joint MOTION for Extension as to Deadlines in the Court's January 4, 2019 Order (Dkt. No. 258) by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 01/08/2019)

01/17/2019

260 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 259 Motion for Extension of Time to File. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent that the deadlines for Defendant TSC's supplemental interrogatory response, the parties' summary judgment motions, and the summary judgment hearing are extended by three weeks; and the Motion is otherwise DENIED. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 01/17/2019. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 01/17/2019)

01/17/2019

Alexandria Set/Reset Hearings: Summary Judgment Hearing set for 4/4/2019 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 701 before District Judge Anthony J Trenga. (acha, ) (Entered: 02/25/2019)

02/15/2019

261 MOTION to Compel re: Private Dissemmination by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 02/15/2019)

02/15/2019

262 Memorandum in Support re 261 MOTION to Compel re: Private Dissemmination filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Attachments:

# 1 Exhibit A (Supplemental Interrogatory Resposne), # 2 Exhibit B (Excerpts of FBI Deposition on Private Dissemmination), # 3 Exhibit C (TSA Quiet Skies Deposition))(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 02/15/2019)

02/15/2019 263 Notice of Hearing Date for 2/22/2019 re 261 MOTION to Compel re: Private Dissemmination (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 02/15/2019)

02/19/2019

264 MOTION for Extension of Time to File for Summary Judgment by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 02/19/2019)

02/19/2019

265 Waiver of re 264 MOTION for Extension of Time to File for Summary Judgment Oral Argument by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair ElShwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 02/19/2019)

02/19/2019

Set Deadlines as to 261 MOTION to Compel re: Private Dissemmination. Motion Hearing set for 2/22/2019 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (clar, ) (Entered: 02/19/2019)

02/19/2019

MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge: Anderson. 261 MOTION to Compel re: Private Dissemmination (clar, ) (Entered: 02/19/2019)

02/19/2019

266 RESPONSE to Motion re 264 MOTION for Extension of Time to File for Summary Judgment filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 02/19/2019)

02/19/2019 267 ORDER granting 264 MOTION for Extension of Time to File for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 2/19/2019. (See order for further details). (acha, ) (Entered: 02/19/2019)

02/20/2019 268 RESPONSE in Opposition re 261 MOTION to Compel re: Private Dissemmination filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles

H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 02/20/2019)

02/21/2019

269 REPLY to Response to Motion re 261 MOTION to Compel re: Private Dissemmination filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 02/21/2019)

02/22/2019

270 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson:Motion Hearing held on 2/22/2019 re 261 MOTION to Compel re: Private Dissemmination filed by Wael Hakmeh, Mark Amri, Shahir Anwar, Murat Frljuckic, Michael Edmund Coleman, Mahmoud Eraqi, Yaseen Kadura, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas, Ausama Elhuzayel, John Doe No. 2, Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Baby Doe 2, Saleem Ali, Muhammad Yahya Khan, John Doe No. 1, Samir Anwar, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, John Doe No. 3, Hassan Fares, John Doe No. 4, Anas Elhady, Ibrahim Awad, Hassan Shibly. Appearances of counsel for plaintiffs and defendants. Motion argued and 261 MOTION to Compel - GRANTED IN PART. Order to follow. (Tape #FTR.)(wgar, ) (Entered: 02/22/2019)

02/22/2019

271 ORDER, for the reasons stated from the bench, granting in part 261 Motion to Compel. Defendants shall provide a supplemental response to plaintiffs by Friday, March 1, 2019. Counsel for plaintiffs shall have the opportunity to view the list of private entity names at a government facility by Monday, February 25, 2019. It is further ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment briefing schedule is modified. Any motions for summary judgment shall be filed by Monday, March 11, 2019, any response briefs shall be filed by Monday, March 25, 2019, and any reply briefs shall be filed by Monday, April 1, 2019. This order does not affect the date of the hearing before the District Judge on the motions for summary judgment, which remains scheduled for Thursday, April 4, 2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 02/22/2019. (wgar, ) (Entered: 02/22/2019)

02/25/2019 272 TRANSCRIPT of motions hearing held on 2-22-2019 before Mag. Judge Anderson. Court Reporter Norman Linnell, telephone number 703-549-4626. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF

TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have thirty(30) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vaed.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the court reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 3/27/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/29/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/28/2019.(linnell, norman) (Entered: 02/25/2019)

02/25/2019

273 Emergency MOTION Status Conference by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 02/25/2019)

02/25/2019

274 ORDER granting 273 Emergency MOTION Status Conference by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 2/25/2019. (See order for further details). (acha, ) (Entered: 02/25/2019)

03/01/2019

275 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Law Enforcement Privileged Information by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

03/01/2019

276 Memorandum in Support re 275 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Law Enforcement Privileged Information filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

03/01/2019

277 Notice of Hearing Date set for 3/8/2019 re 275 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Law Enforcement Privileged Information (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

03/01/2019

278 Notice of Under Seal Filing LCvR5 (B) by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John

Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas Motion to Compel re: Private Dissemination (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

03/01/2019 279 Sealed Memorandum in Support re 278 Notice of Under Seal Filing LCvR5 (B),. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

03/01/2019 280 Notice of Hearing Date for March 8, 2019 re 279 Sealed Memorandum in Support, 278 Notice of Under Seal Filing LCvR5 (B), (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

03/04/2019 281 Sealed Memorandum in Support re 279 Sealed Memorandum in Support, 278 Notice of Under Seal Filing LCvR5 (B),. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/04/2019)

03/05/2019

Set Deadlines as to 275 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Law Enforcement Privileged Information. Motion Hearing set for 3/8/2019 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (clar, ) (Entered: 03/05/2019)

03/05/2019

MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge: Anderson. 275 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Law Enforcement Privileged Information (clar, ) (Entered: 03/05/2019)

03/05/2019

Notice of Correction re 278 Notice of Under Seal Filing LCvR5 (B), An incomplete, illegible, or incorrect document was filed. The filing user has been notified to refile the document.(clar, ) (Entered: 03/05/2019)

03/05/2019

Notice of Correction re 280 Notice of Hearing Date, 279 Sealed Memorandum in Support. The filing user has been notified to refile the documents. (clar, ) (Entered: 03/05/2019)

03/05/2019

282 MOTION to Compel re: Private Dissemmination by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/05/2019)

03/05/2019 283 Notice of Hearing Date set for 3/8/2019 re 282 MOTION to Compel re: Private Dissemmination (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/05/2019)

03/05/2019 284 Notice of Under Seal Filing LCvR5 (B) by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar,

Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas re 282 MOTION to Compel re: Private Dissemmination (Supporting memoranda submitted under seal due to Court's Attorney Eyes Only order at February 22, 2019 hearing) (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/05/2019)

03/05/2019

Set Deadlines as to 282 MOTION to Compel re: Private Dissemmination. Motion Hearing set for 3/8/2019 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (clar, ) (Entered: 03/05/2019)

03/05/2019

MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge: Anderson. 282 MOTION to Compel re: Private Dissemmination (clar, ) (Entered: 03/05/2019)

03/05/2019

285 Sealed Memorandum in Support re 282 MOTION to Compel re: Private Dissemmination. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Memorandum in Support following receipt of additional information from Defendants)(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/05/2019)

03/05/2019

286 EXHIBIT A re: Motion to Compel (Public 2/22/2019 Transcript) by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas.. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/05/2019)

03/06/2019

287 Opposition to 282 MOTION to Compel re: Private Dissemmination filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/06/2019)

03/06/2019 288 RESPONSE in Opposition re 275 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Law Enforcement Privileged Information filed by Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/06/2019)

03/07/2019

289 ORDER - The court is scheduled to hear two motions on Friday, March 8, 2019, concerning the private entities who have been provided with access to NCIC information. (Docket nos. 275, 282). Counsel for the

defendants shall be prepared to address what, if any, restrictions are placed on a private entity on disclosing that it has been given access to NCIC information. While the materials referenced by the defendants firmly establish restrictions placed on a private entity concerning the use of NCIC information, it is unclear what, if any, restrictions are placed on the private entity concerning it having access to that information. To be clear, the issue concerns the disclosure of the fact that the entity has access to NCIC information and not the restrictions on the use of the NCIC information. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 03/07/2019. (wgar, ) (Entered: 03/07/2019)

03/07/2019

290 REPLY to Response to Motion re 275 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Law Enforcement Privileged Information filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/07/2019)

03/07/2019

291 REPLY to Response to Motion re 282 MOTION to Compel re: Private Dissemmination filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/07/2019)

03/08/2019

292 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson:Motion Hearing held on 3/8/2019 re 282 MOTION to Compel re: Private Dissemmination filed by Wael Hakmeh, Mark Amri, Shahir Anwar, Murat Frljuckic, Michael Edmund Coleman, Mahmoud Eraqi, Yaseen Kadura, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas, Ausama Elhuzayel, John Doe No. 2, Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Baby Doe 2, Saleem Ali, Muhammad Yahya Khan, John Doe No. 1, Samir Anwar, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, John Doe No. 3, Hassan Fares, John Doe No. 4, Anas Elhady, Ibrahim Awad, Hassan Shibly, 275 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Law Enforcement Privileged Information filed by Christopher Wray, Kelli Ann Burriesci, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Charles H. Kable, David Pekoske, Deborah Moore, Timothy P. Groh, Kevin K. McAleenan. Appearances of counsel for plaintiffs and defendants. Motions argued and 275 MOTION for Protective Order - GRANTED IN PART; 282 MOTION to Compel - DENIED. Orders to follow. (Tape #FTR.)(wgar, ) (Entered: 03/08/2019)

03/08/2019

293 ORDER, for the reasons stated from the bench, granting in part 275 Motion for Protective Order. ORDERED that the court will enter a protective order that modifies the proposed protective order submitted by the defendants to address certain issues raised by the plaintiffs. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 03/08/2019. (wgar, ) (Entered: 03/08/2019)

03/08/2019

294 ORDER, for the reasons stated from the bench, denying 282 Motion to Compel. This ruling is without prejudice to the District Judge requiring the list to be produced, in camera if necessary, during the summary judgment stage of the proceedings. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 03/08/2019. (wgar, ) (Entered: 03/08/2019)

03/08/2019

295 ORDER, for the reasons stated from the bench, ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to seal is denied. Plaintiffs shall file their memorandum in support and supplemental memorandum in the public record. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 03/08/2019. (wgar, ) (Entered: 03/08/2019)

03/08/2019

296 PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING ACCESS TO, HANDLING OF, AND DISPOSITION OF INFORMATION IN THE ORI LIST. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 03/08/2019. SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS. (wgar, ) (Entered: 03/08/2019)

03/08/2019

297 Memorandum in Support re 282 MOTION to Compel re: Private Dissemmination filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Memorandum in Support following receipt of additional information from Defendants [ REFILED publicly pursuant to Court Order])(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/08/2019)

03/11/2019

298 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/11/2019)

03/11/2019

299 Memorandum in Support re 298 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9,

# 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21, # 23 Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit 23, # 25 Exhibit 24, # 26 Exhibit 25, # 27 Exhibit 26, # 28 Exhibit 27, # 29 Exhibit 28, # 30 Exhibit 29, # 31 Exhibit 30, # 32 Exhibit 31, # 33 Exhibit 32, # 34 Exhibit 33, # 35 Exhibit 34, # 36 Exhibit 35, # 37 Exhibit 36, # 38 Exhibit 37, # 39 Exhibit 38, # 40 Exhibit 39, # 41 Exhibit 40)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/11/2019)

03/11/2019

300 EXHIBIT by Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 41, # 2 Exhibit 42, # 3 Exhibit 43, # 4 Exhibit 44, # 5 Exhibit 45, # 6 Exhibit 46, # 7 Exhibit 47, # 8 Exhibit 48)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/11/2019)

03/11/2019

301 EXHIBIT by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 49, # 2 Exhibit 50, # 3 Exhibit 51, # 4 Exhibit 52, # 5 Exhibit 53, # 6 Exhibit 54, # 7 Exhibit 55, # 8 Exhibit 56, # 9 Exhibit 57, # 10 Exhibit 58)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/11/2019)

03/11/2019 302 Notice of Hearing Date set for 04/04/2019 re 298 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/11/2019)

03/11/2019

303 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/11/2019)

03/11/2019

304 Memorandum in Support re 303 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/11/2019)

03/12/2019 305 EXHIBIT s (with Index) re: Plaintiffs' MSJ by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar,

Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 1A, # 3 Exhibit 1B, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 2A, # 6 Exhibit 3, # 7 Exhibit 3A, # 8 Exhibit 3B, # 9 Exhibit 4, # 10 Exhibit 4A, # 11 Exhibit 5, # 12 Exhibit 5A, # 13 Exhibit 5B, # 14 Exhibit 6, # 15 Exhibit 7, # 16 Exhibit 7A, # 17 Exhibit 8, # 18 Exhibit 8A, # 19 Exhibit 8B, # 20 Exhibit 9, # 21 Exhibit 9A, # 22 Exhibit 9B, # 23 Exhibit 9C, # 24 Exhibit 10, # 25 Exhibit 10A)(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/12/2019)

03/12/2019

306 EXHIBIT s re: Plaintiffs MSJ by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 11A, # 2 Exhibit 12, # 3 Exhibit 12A, # 4 Exhibit 13, # 5 Exhibit 13A, # 6 Exhibit 14, # 7 Exhibit 14A, # 8 Exhibit 14B, # 9 Exhibit 15, # 10 Exhibit 16, # 11 Exhibit 16A, # 12 Exhibit 17, # 13 Exhibit 17A, # 14 Exhibit 17B, # 15 Exhibit 18, # 16 Exhibit 18A, # 17 Exhibit 18B, # 18 Exhibit 19, # 19 Exhibit 19A, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 21A, # 23 Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit 22A, # 25 Exhibit 23, # 26 Exhibit 23A, # 27 Exhibit 24, # 28 Exhibit 25, # 29 Exhibit 26, # 30 Exhibit 27, # 31 Exhibit 28, # 32 Exhibit 29)(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/12/2019)

03/12/2019

307 EXHIBIT s re: Plaintiffs MSJ by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 31, # 2 Exhibit 32, # 3 Exhibit 33, # 4 Exhibit 34, # 5 Exhibit 35, # 6 Exhibit 36, # 7 Errata 37, # 8 Exhibit 38, # 9 Exhibit 39, # 10 Exhibit 40, # 11 Exhibit 41, # 12 Exhibit 42, # 13 Exhibit 43, # 14 Exhibit 44, # 15 Exhibit 45, # 16 Exhibit 46, # 17 Exhibit 47, # 18 Exhibit 48, # 19 Exhibit 49, # 20 Exhibit 50)(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/12/2019)

03/12/2019 308 EXHIBIT s re: Plaintiffs MSJ by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir

Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 51, # 2 Exhibit 52, # 3 Exhibit 53, # 4 Exhibit 54, # 5 Exhibit 55, # 6 Exhibit 56, # 7 Exhibit 57, # 8 Exhibit 58, # 9 Exhibit 59, # 10 Exhibit 60, # 11 Exhibit 61, # 12 Exhibit 62, # 13 Exhibit 63, # 14 Exhibit 64, # 15 Exhibit 65, # 16 Exhibit 66, # 17 Exhibit 67, # 18 Exhibit 68, # 19 Exhibit 69, # 20 Exhibit 70, # 21 Exhibit 71, # 22 Exhibit 72, # 23 Exhibit 73, # 24 Exhibit 74, # 25 Exhibit 75, # 26 Exhibit 76, # 27 Exhibit 77, # 28 Exhibit 78, # 29 Exhibit 79, # 30 Exhibit 80, # 31 Exhibit 81, # 32 Exhibit 82, # 33 Exhibit 83)(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/12/2019)

03/12/2019

Set Deadlines as to 303 MOTION for Summary Judgment . Motion Hearing set for 4/4/2019 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 701 before District Judge Anthony J Trenga. (clar, ) (Entered: 03/12/2019)

03/13/2019

Notice of Correction re 303 MOTION for Summary Judgment . The filing user has been notified to file a Notice of Hearing Date or a Notice of Waiver of Oral Argument. (acha, ) (Entered: 03/13/2019)

03/13/2019

309 NOTICE by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray of Submission of Corrected Summary Judgment Exhibit (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 52 (Corrected))(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/13/2019)

03/13/2019 310 Notice of Hearing Date set for 4/4/2019 re 303 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/13/2019)

03/14/2019

Set Deadlines as to 298 MOTION for Summary Judgment . Motion Hearing set for 4/4/2019 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 701 before District Judge Anthony J Trenga. (clar, ) (Entered: 03/14/2019)

03/25/2019

311 Memorandum in Opposition re 303 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index of Defendants' Additional Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 59, # 3 Exhibit 60, # 4 Exhibit 61, # 5 Exhibit 62, # 6 Exhibit 63, # 7 Exhibit 64, # 8 Exhibit 65, # 9 Exhibit 66, # 10 Exhibit 67, # 11 Exhibit 68)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/25/2019)

03/25/2019 312 NOTICE by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J.

Rasmussen, Christopher Wray of Lodging (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 03/25/2019)

03/25/2019

313 Memorandum in Opposition re 298 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/25/2019)

03/26/2019

314 EXHIBIT s (with Index) re: Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' MSJ by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 84, # 2 Exhibit 85, # 3 Exhibit 86, # 4 Exhibit 87, # 5 Exhibit 88, # 6 Exhibit 89, # 7 Exhibit 90, # 8 Exhibit 91, # 9 Exhibit 92, # 10 Exhibit 93)(Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/26/2019)

03/26/2019

315 RESPONSE in Opposition re 298 MOTION for Summary Judgment [CORRECTED] filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 03/26/2019)

04/01/2019

316 REPLY to Response to Motion re 298 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Reply Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 69, # 3 Errata 70, # 4 Exhibit 71)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 04/01/2019)

04/01/2019

317 REPLY to Response to Motion re 303 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas

Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 04/01/2019)

04/03/2019

318 Consent MOTION for Electronic Device Application to support access to voluminous record during Summary Judgment hearing by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 04/03/2019)

04/03/2019

319 ORDER granting 318 Consent MOTION for Electronic Device Application to support access to voluminous record during Summary Judgment hearing. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 4/3/2019. (See order for further details). (acha, ) (Entered: 04/03/2019)

04/03/2019 320 NOTICE by Michael Edmund Coleman re 316 Reply to Response to Motion, of Re-Opening DHS TRIP (Abbas, Gadeir) (Entered: 04/03/2019)

04/04/2019

321 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Anthony J. Trenga:Summary Judgment Motion Hearing held on 4/4/2019 re 298 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by David Pekoske, Deborah Moore, Christopher Wray, Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Kevin K. McAleenan, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Charles H. Kable, 303 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Wael Hakmeh, Mark Amri, Shahir Anwar, Murat Frljuckic, Michael Edmund Coleman, Mahmoud Eraqi, Yaseen Kadura, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas, Ausama Elhuzayel, John Doe No. 2, Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Baby Doe 2, Saleem Ali, Muhammad Yahya Khan, John Doe No. 1, Samir Anwar, Zuhair ElShwehdi, John Doe No. 3, Hassan Fares, John Doe No. 4, Anas Elhady, Ibrahim Awad, Hassan Shibly. Counsel appeared for Plaintiff and Defendant. Motions argued and taken under advisement. Order to follow. (Court Reporter R. Montgomery)(dzir) (Entered: 04/04/2019)

06/24/2019

322 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 4/4/19 ( 298 303 Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment), before Judge Anthony J. Trenga, Court Reporter/Transcriber Rhonda Montgomery, Telephone number 703299-4599. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have thirty(30) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice

of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vaed.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the court reporter/transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 7/24/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/26/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/23/2019.(montgomery, rhonda) (Entered: 06/24/2019)

09/04/2019

323 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION and ORDER denying 298 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 303 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 9/4/2019. (See order for further details). (acha, ) (Entered: 09/04/2019)

09/05/2019

324 NOTICE of Appearance by Justin Mark Sadowsky on behalf of Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas (Sadowsky, Justin) (Entered: 09/05/2019)

09/10/2019

325 Amicus/Notice 66-Judge Anthony John Trenga rules that(the Legislation that created) the Terrorism Watch List is Unconstitutional by David Andrew Christenson. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment #1, # 2 Attachment #2, # 3 Attachment #3, # 4 Envelope)(acha, ) (Entered: 09/10/2019)

09/13/2019 326 Amicus/Notice 67 by David Andrew Christenson. (acha, ) (Main Document 326 replaced on 9/17/2019) per AJT 9/17/2019 Order(acha, ). (Entered: 09/13/2019)

09/16/2019

327 Amicus-Notice 68 by David Andrew Christenson (Attachments: # 1 Attachment #1, # 2 Attachment #2, # 3 Attachment #3, # 4 Attachment #4, # 5 Envelope)(acha, ) (Main Document 327 replaced on 9/17/2019) (acha, ). (Attachment 1 replaced on 9/17/2019) (acha, ). (Attachment 2 replaced on 9/17/2019) (acha, ). (Attachment 3 replaced on 9/17/2019) (acha, ). (Attachment 4 replaced on 9/17/2019) (acha, ). (Attachment 5 replaced on 9/17/2019) (acha, ). Modified on 9/17/2019 to remove per 9/17/2019 court order (acha, ). (Entered: 09/16/2019)

09/17/2019

328 ORDER- It is hereby ORDERED that pro se movant David Andrew Christenson's Motion for Leave to File Motion to Intervene [Doc. No. 325-1] be, and the same hereby is, DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that since movant is not a party to these proceedings, no additional submissions from the movant shall be docketed in this case; and it is further ORDERED that the movant's September 13, 2019 [Doc. No. 326 ] and September 16, 2019 [Doc. No. 327 ] submissions shall be removed from the docket. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 9/17/2019. (See order for further details).(acha, ) (Entered: 09/17/2019)

09/20/2019

329 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time for Supplemental Briefing on Remedy by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 09/20/2019)

09/24/2019

330 ORDERED that the deadlines for supplemental briefing are extended such that the supplemental remedy briefs are due on or before October 25, 2019, and the reply briefs are due on or before November 22, 2019. Signed by District Judge Anthony J. Trenga on 9/24/2019. (dzir) (Entered: 09/24/2019)

10/25/2019

331 Memorandum of Law Regarding Remedies filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supplemental Declaration of Michael J. Orlando)(Levenson, Rebecca) (Entered: 10/25/2019)

10/25/2019

332 Memorandum of Law Regarding Remedies to 323 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair ElShwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Masri, Lena) (Entered: 10/25/2019)

11/22/2019

333 Response to 332 Memorandum,, filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Declaration)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 11/22/2019)

11/22/2019 334 Reply to 331 Memorandum, filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir

Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Masri, Lena) (Entered: 11/22/2019)

12/04/2019

335 ORDER- It is hereby ORDERED that within 10 days of the date of this Order, the Government file a statement that identifies with specifically those facts recited in the Court's September 4, 2019 Order [Doc. No. 323], as to which it contends there is a genuine factual dispute, with a specific supporting reference to the existing summary judgment record; and it is further ORDERED that a hearing on the parties' supplemental briefing as to remedies be, and the same hereby is SCHEDULED for Thursday, December 18, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 12/4/2019. (See order for further details). (acha, ) (Entered: 12/04/2019)

12/04/2019

Set Deadlines/Hearings Supplemental Briefing as to remedies set for 12/18/2019 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 701 before District Judge Anthony J Trenga. (acha, ) (Entered: 12/04/2019)

12/13/2019

336 Consent MOTION to Continue December 18, 2019 Hearing by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 12/13/2019)

12/16/2019

337 ORDER granting 336 Consent MOTION to Continue December 18, 2019 Hearing by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 12/16/2019. (See order for further details). (acha, ) (Entered: 12/16/2019)

12/16/2019

338 Response to 335 Order,, (Statement of Disputed Facts) filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 12/16/2019)

12/18/2019

339 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (Carolyn M. Homer) by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan

Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Masri, Lena) (Entered: 12/18/2019)

12/18/2019

340 Waiver of re 339 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (Carolyn M. Homer) (Waiver of Hearing) by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas (Masri, Lena) (Entered: 12/18/2019)

12/18/2019

341 ORDER - It is hereby ORDERED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) that final judgment be, and the same hereby is, ENTERED against Plaintiffs and in favor of Defendants as to Counts II (substantive due process claim), IV (The Equal Protection Clause claim}, and V (the nondelegation doctrine claim), which claims the Court dismissed on September 5, 2017 [Doc. No. 47] and as to which the Court expressly determines there is no just cause for delay; and it is further ORDERED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that a declaratory judgment be, and the same hereby is, ENTERED in favor of the Plaintiffs and against Defendants in connection with their procedural due process claim in Count I and their Administrative Procedure Act claim in Count III, and the Court declares, as set forth in its Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 4, 2019 [Doc. No. 323 ], that (1) Plaintiffs, or at least some of them, have standing to raise their constitutional challenges; (2) Plaintiffs have constitutionally protected liberty interests that are implicated by their inclusion in the TSDB; and (3) the DHS TRIP process through Plaintiffs may challenge their inclusion in the TSDB is not constitutionally adequate to protect those liberty interests; and it is further ORDERED that to the extent the Court's declaratory judgment and declaration of rights entered herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 with respect to Plaintiffs' procedural due process claim in Count I and their Administrative Procedure Act claim in Count III does not constitute a final appealable judgment, the Court hereby certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) that the Court's declaration of rights involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and therefore an immediate appeal from this Order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants shall disclose those revised procedures to the Court for its review as to their constitutional adequacy, as well as the status of the named Plaintiffs with respect to any TSDB listing after a review under those revised procedures; and within forty-five (45) days of the date of this Order shall file a status report as to these revised DHS TRIP procedures and Defendants' review of any Plaintiffs' placement on the TSDB under

those revised procedures; and it is further ORDERED that, notwithstanding any appeals, this action shall continue as appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2202 and 28 U.S.C § 1292(b) with respect to any remaining claims or further necessary or proper relief based on the declarations and orders contained herein. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 12/18/2019. (See order for further details). (acha, ) (Entered: 12/18/2019)

12/19/2019

342 RULE 58 Judgment is hereby entered pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.54(b) against Plaintiffs and in favor of Defendants as to Counts II (substantive due process claim), IV (The Equal Protection Clause claim), and V (the non-delegation doctrine claim), which claims the Court dismissed on September 5, 2017 and it is further pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2201 that a declaratory judgment be, and the same hereby is ENTERED in favor of the Plaintiffs and against Defendants in connection with their procedural due process claim in Count 1 and their Administrative Procedure Act claim in Count III. This is a final judgment with respect to the claims designated herein. Signed by Clerk on 12/19/2019. (See order for further details) (acha, ) (Entered: 12/19/2019)

12/19/2019

343 ORDER granting re 339 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (Carolyn M. Homer) filed by Wael Hakmeh, Mark Amri, Shahir Anwar, Murat Frljuckic, Michael Edmund Coleman, Mahmoud Eraqi, Yaseen Kadura, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Donald Thomas, Ausama Elhuzayel, John Doe No. 2, Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Baby Doe 2, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Samir Anwar, Zuhair ElShwehdi, John Doe No. 3, Hassan Fares, John Doe No. 4, Anas Elhady, Ibrahim Awad, Hassan Shibly. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 12/19/2019. (See order for further details). (acha, ) (Entered: 12/19/2019)

12/20/2019

344 MOTION to Vacate 341 Order,,,,,,,,,,, (Partial Vacatur in Light of TenDay Deadline) by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 12/20/2019)

12/20/2019

345 Memorandum in Support re 344 MOTION to Vacate 341 Order,,,,,,,,,,, (Partial Vacatur in Light of Ten-Day Deadline) filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 12/20/2019)

12/20/2019

346 Waiver of re 344 MOTION to Vacate 341 Order,,,,,,,,,,, (Partial Vacatur in Light of Ten-Day Deadline) (Waiver of Hearing) by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 12/20/2019)

12/26/2019

347 RESPONSE to Motion re 344 MOTION to Vacate 341 Order,,,,,,,,,,, (Partial Vacatur in Light of Ten-Day Deadline) filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Mahmoud Eraqi, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Masri, Lena) (Entered: 12/26/2019)

12/27/2019

348 ORDERED that the Motion 344 be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the Courts Order dated December 18, 2019 341 together with the final judgment entered in connection therewith pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 be, and the same hereby are, VACATED; and in its place, it is hereby ORDERED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) that final judgment be, and the same hereby is, ENTERED against Plaintiffs and in favor of Defendants as to Counts II (substantive due process claim), IV (The Equal Protection Clause claim), and V (the non-delegation doctrine claim), which claims the Court dismissed on September 5, 2017 47 and as to which the Court expressly determines there is no just cause for delay. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 12/27/2019. (see order for further details) (dvanm, ) (Entered: 12/27/2019)

12/27/2019 349 RULE 58 JUDGMENT. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 12/27/2019. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 12/27/2019)

01/31/2020

350 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen. (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 01/31/2020)

01/31/2020

351 MOTION to Stay by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 01/31/2020)

01/31/2020

352 Memorandum in Support re 351 MOTION to Stay filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 01/31/2020)

01/31/2020 353 Notice of Hearing Date (2/7/20) re 351 MOTION to Stay (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 01/31/2020)

01/31/2020

354 MOTION to Re-Certify the Court's Disposition of Counts I and III for Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 01/31/2020)

01/31/2020

355 Memorandum in Support re 354 MOTION to Re-Certify the Court's Disposition of Counts I and III for Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 01/31/2020)

01/31/2020 356 Notice of Hearing Date re 354 MOTION to Re-Certify the Court's Disposition of Counts I and III for Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 01/31/2020)

01/31/2020

357 Transmission of Notice of Appeal to US Court of Appeals re 350 Notice of Appeal (All case opening forms, plus the transcript guidelines, may be obtained from the Fourth Circuit's website at www.ca4.uscourts.gov) (acha, ) (Entered: 01/31/2020)

02/03/2020

Set Deadlines as to 351 MOTION to Stay , 354 MOTION to Re-Certify the Court's Disposition of Counts I and III for Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) . Motion Hearing set for 2/7/2020 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 701 before District Judge Anthony J Trenga. (clar, ) (Entered: 02/03/2020)

02/03/2020

358 USCA Case Number 20-1119 4th Circuit, M. Radday, Case Manager for 350 Notice of Appeal filed by David Pekoske, Timothy P. Groh, Kelli Ann Burriesci, Deborah Moore, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Kevin K. McAleenan, Charles H. Kable. (acha, ) (Entered: 02/03/2020)

02/05/2020

359 ORDER- It is hereby ORDERED that the hearing on the Motions 351 , 354 currently scheduled for Friday, February 7, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. be, and the same hereby, is CONTINUED to Friday, February 14, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's are directed to respond to Defendants' Motions by Wednesday, February 12, 2020.Motion Hearing set for 2/14/2020 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 701 before District Judge Anthony J Trenga. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 2/5/2020. (See order for further details). (acha, ) Copies sent as directed in the order. (Entered: 02/05/2020)

02/10/2020

360 STATUS REPORT by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 02/10/2020)

02/12/2020

361 Opposition to 351 MOTION to Stay filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Masri, Lena) (Entered: 02/12/2020)

02/12/2020

362 Opposition to 354 MOTION to Re-Certify the Court's Disposition of Counts I and III for Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) filed by Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi, Saleem Ali, Mark Amri, Samir Anwar, Shahir Anwar, Ibrahim Awad, Baby Doe 2, Michael Edmund Coleman, Zuhair El-Shwehdi, Anas Elhady, Ausama Elhuzayel, Hassan Fares, Murat Frljuckic, Wael Hakmeh, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, Yaseen Kadura, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Hassan Shibly, Donald Thomas. (Masri, Lena) (Entered: 02/12/2020)

02/13/2020

363 REPLY to Response to Motion re 354 MOTION to Re-Certify the Court's Disposition of Counts I and III for Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 02/13/2020)

02/13/2020

364 REPLY to Response to Motion re 351 MOTION to Stay filed by Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Charles H. Kable, Kevin K. McAleenan, Deborah Moore, David Pekoske, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Christopher Wray. (Wetzler, Lauren) (Entered: 02/13/2020)

02/14/2020

365 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Anthony J. Trenga: Motion Hearing held on 2/14/2020 re 354 MOTION to ReCertify the Court's Disposition of Counts I and III for Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) filed by David Pekoske, Deborah Moore, Christopher Wray, Kelli Ann Burriesci, Timothy P. Groh, Kevin K. McAleenan, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Charles H. Kable, 351 MOTION to Stay filed by David Pekoske, Deborah Moore, Christopher Wray, Timothy P. Groh, Kelli Ann Burriesci, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Kevin K. McAleenan, Charles H. Kable. Counsel appeared for Plaintiff and Defendant. Motions argued. Defendant's Motion to Stay 351 is denied. Defendant's Motion to Re-Certify the Court's

Disposition of Counts I and III for Interlocutory Appeal 354 is granted. Order to follow. (Court Reporter Pat Kaneshiro-Miller)(dzir) (Entered: 02/14/2020)

02/14/2020

366 ORDER- It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Stay [Doc. No. 351 ] be, and the same hereby is, DENIED for the reasons stated in open court; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Re-Certify the Court's Disposition of Counts I and III for Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) [Doc. No. 354 ) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants submit to the Court the information and revised procedures identified in its Order dated December 27, 2019 [Doc. No. 3481 within ninety (90) days of the date of this Order, and to the extent the Defendants contend that this information and revised procedures should be placed, in whole or in part, under seal or submitted ex parte or in camera. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 2/14/2020. (See order for further details). (acha, ) (Entered: 02/14/2020)

02/20/2020

367 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on February 14, 2020, before Judge Anthony Trenga, Court Reporter/Transcriber Patricia Kaneshiro-Miller, Telephone number 703 299-2100. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have thirty(30) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vaed.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the court reporter/transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER Redaction Request due 3/23/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/21/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/20/2020.(Kaneshiro-Miller, Patricia) (Entered: 02/20/2020)

02/25/2020

368 USCA Case Number 20-154 4th Circuit for 350 Notice of Appeal filed by David Pekoske, Timothy P. Groh, Kelli Ann Burriesci, Deborah Moore, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Kevin K. McAleenan, Charles H. Kable. (acha, ) (Entered: 02/25/2020)

03/17/2020

369 USCA Case Number 20-1311 4th Circuit for 350 Notice of Appeal (Rule 5 Petition granted by 4CCA in 20-154 ) filed by David Pekoske, Timothy P. Groh, Kelli Ann Burriesci, Deborah Moore, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Kevin K. McAleenan, Charles H. Kable. (acha, ) (Entered: 03/17/2020)

03/17/2020

370 ORDER of USCA as to 350 Notice of Appeal filed by David Pekoske, Timothy P. Groh, Kelli Ann Burriesci, Deborah Moore, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Kevin K. McAleenan, Charles H. Kable. The court consolidates Case No. 20-1119 and Case No. 20-1311. (acha, ) (Entered: 03/17/2020)

03/30/2021 371 PUBLISHED Opinion of USCA re 350 Notice of Appeal REVERSED AND REMANDED (dvanm, ) (Entered: 03/30/2021)

03/30/2021

372 USCA JUDGMENT as to 350 Notice of Appeal filed by David Pekoske, Timothy P. Groh, Kelli Ann Burriesci, Deborah Moore, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Kevin K. McAleenan, Charles H. Kable. In accordance with the decision of this court, the judgment of the district court is affirmed in part and reversed in part. This case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision. This judgment shall take effect upon issuance of this court's mandate in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 41. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 03/30/2021)

05/14/2021

373 Temporary Stay of Mandate as to 350 Notice of Appeal filed by David Pekoske, Timothy P. Groh, Kelli Ann Burriesci, Deborah Moore, Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Kevin K. McAleenan, Charles H. Kable. Under Fed. R. App. P. 41(b), the filing of a timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc stays the mandate until the court has ruled on the petition. In accordance with Rule 41(b), the mandate is stayed pending further order of thiscourt. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 05/14/2021)

06/07/2021

374 USCA Mandate re 350 Notice of Appeal. The judgment of this court, entered March 30, 2021, takes effect today. This constitutes the formal mandate of this court issued pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. (dvanm, ) (Entered: 06/07/2021)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

06/15/2021 13:40:52

CRClearinghouse Client Code:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

30

Cost:

Woo Kee
1:16-cv-00375-AJTJFA
3.00

 
 Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 53 PageID# 1

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

ANASELHADY; OSAMA HUSSEIN AHMED;

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

201b APR-5 P 12= 18

Case No.

AHMAD IBRAHIM AL HALABI; MICHAEL EDMUND COLEMAN;

Hon.

WAELHAKMEH;

MURATFRLJUCKIC;

ADNAN KHALIL SHAOUT;

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE

SALEEMALI;

AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

SHAHIR ANWAR;

SAMIR ANWAR;

JOHN DOE NO. 1;

JOHN DOE NO. 2; and,

JOHN DOE NO. 3;

Plaintiffs,

V.
CHRISTOPHER M. PIEHOTA, Director of the Terrorist Screening Center; in his official capacity;
STEVEN MABEUS, Principal Deputy Director of the Terrorist Screening Center; in his official capacity;
G. CLAYTON GRIGG, Deputy Director of Operations of the Terrorist Screening Center; in his official capacity;
JAMES G. KENNEDY, Director, Transportation Security Redress (OTSR), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and Director of the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP); in his official capacity;
MATTHEW G. OLSEN, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, in his official capacity;

Defendants.

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 2 of 53 PageID# 2
COMPLAINT FOR INIUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
Plaintiffs, Anas Elhady, Osama Hussein Ahmed, Ahmad Ibrahim AI Halabi, Michael Edmund Coleman, Wael Hakmeh, Murat Frijuckic, Adnan Khalil Shaout, Saleem Ali, Shahir Anwar, Samir Anwar, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, and John Doe No. 3 for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, through their attorneys, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Michigan ("CAIR-MI"), The Law Office of Gadeir
Abbas, and Akeel and Valentine, PLC, state as follows:
Introduction
1. Our federal government is imposing an injustice of historic proportions upon the Americans who have filed this action, as well as thousands of other Americans. Through extra-judicial and secret means, the federal government is ensnaring individuals into an invisible web of consequences that are imposed indefinitely and without recourse as a result of the shockingly large federal watch list that now include hundreds of thousands of
individuals.
2. Indeed, many Americans, including children, end up on these secret federal watch list - which the Defendants have named the Terrorist Screening Database ("TSDB") based on mere guesses, hunches, and conjecture and even simply based on matters of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion or the exercise of their constitutional rights.
3. These consequences include the inability to fly on airplanes, to go through security without having all screeners receive a message for the remainder of a listee's life that she is a "known or suspected terrorist," to obtain licenses, to exercise their Second Amendment right to own a firearm, and to be free from the unimaginable indignity and reallife danger of having their own government communicate to hundreds of thousands of

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 3 of 53 PageID# 3

federal agents, private contractors, businesses, state and local police, the captains of sea

faring vessels, and foreign governments all across the world that they are a violent menace.

4. And unfortunately, the federal government has designed its federal watch list

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

federal watch lists only learn of their placement when they feel the web of consequences

burdening their lives and aspirations, and they never learn why.

5.

Media accounts have made clear that the secret federal watch list is the

product of bigotry and misguided, counterproductive zeal. Americans are dumped onto the

watch list without being charged, convicted, or in some stomach-churning cases, even

subject to an ongoing investigation.

6. Instead, two recently leaked government documents and a governmental report, which include the March 2013 Watchlisting Guidance (Exhibit 2), the Directorate of

Terrorist Identities (DTI): Strategic Accomplishments 2013 (Exhibit 3), and the Department

of Justice's March 2014 Audit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Management of

Terrorist Watchlist (Exhibit 4) reveal that the care the federal government takes in creating

its federal watch list is void of proper processing, which in turn results in life-altering

consequences that flow from these illegal actions.

7. In fact, upon information and belief, Dearborn, a city of less than 100,000 and

a place Arab Americans and Muslim Americans have called home for generations, contains

the second highest concentration of Americans on the federal government's watch list.

Moreover, there have been more than 1.5 million nominations to the federal watch list since

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 4 of 53 PageID# 4
2009 and that, in 2013 for example, the Terrorist Screening Center converted 98.96 percent of those nominations into watch list placements.
8. Upon information and belief, evidence also shows that the federal government uses guilt-by-association presumptions to place family members and friends of listed persons on the watch list.
9. Moreover, travel to Muslim majority countries—travel that American Muslims are very likely to engage in—is also a basis for watch list placement.
10. In 2009, the federal government made 227,932 nominations to its federal watch list. In 2013, that number more than doubled at an alarming and dangerous rate to
468,749.
11. Recently, a federal court judge observed in Gulet Mohamed v. Eric R. Holder,Jr., et al. (United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia,Case No.ll-cv-00050 (2011)), that "[a] showing of past or ongoing unlawful conduct does not seem to be required,... But the Court has little, if any, ability to articulate what information is viewed by TSC as sufficiently 'derogatory' beyond the labels it has provided the Court. In sum, the No Fly List assumes that there are some American citizens who are simply too dangerous to be permitted to fly, no matter the level of pre-flight screening or on-flight surveillance and restraint, even though those citizens cannot be legally arrested, detained, or otherwise
restricted in their movements or conduct." See United States District Court, Eastern District
of Virginia, Case No. ll-cv-00050 (2011); Dkt. 70 at 19; attached as Memorandum Opinion (Exhibit 1).
12. Moreover, the Court went on to find that "[ijnclusion on the No Fly List also labels an American citizen a disloyal American who is capable of, and disposed toward

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 5 of 53 PageID# 5
committing, war crimes, and one can easily imagine the broad range of consequences that might be visited upon such a person if that stigmatizing designation were known by the general public... The process of nomination to the No Fly List is based on a suspected level of future dangerousness that is not necessarily related to any unlawful conduct." See United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. ll-cv-00050 (2011); Dkt. 70 at 14, 17; attached as Memorandum Opinion (Exhibit 1).
13. Plaintiff Yaseen Kadura is a 26 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Cook County, Illinois. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
14. Plaintiff Osama Hussein Ahmed is a 24 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Wayne County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where
the federal watch list is compiled.
15. Plaintiff Anas Elhady is a 22 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Wayne County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal
watch list is compiled. 16. Plaintiff Gulet Mohamed is a United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in
Fairfax County, Virginia. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 6 of 53 PageID# 6
17. Plaintiff Ahmad Ibrahim A1 Halabi is a 37 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Wayne County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
18. Plaintiff Michael Edmund Coleman is a 44 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Wayne County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
19. Plaintiff Wael Hakmeh is a 37 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Oakland County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
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 omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
21. Plaintiff Saleem Ali is a 43 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Wayne County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
22. Plaintiff Shahir Anwar is a 36 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Macomb County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 7 of 53 PageID# 7
events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
23. Plaintiff Samir Anwar is a 29 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Macomb County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
24. Plaintiff Mariam Jukaku is a 32 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Alameda County, California. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
25. Plaintiff Mohammad Haydar is a 34 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Alameda County, California. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
26. Plaintiff John Doe No. 1 is a 51 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Washtenaw County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
27. Plaintiff John Doe No. 2 is a 38 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Oakland County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 8 of 53 PageID# 8
28. Plaintiff John Doe No. 3 is a 55 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Washtenaw County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal watch list is compiled.
29. Defendant Christopher M. Piehota is the current Director of the Terrorist Screening Center ("TSC"). Defendant Piehota was appointed in April, 2013. Defendant Piehota develops and maintains the federal government's consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the "watch list"), and accepts nominations of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
American citizens made to the federal watch list. Defendant Piehota also oversees the
dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of "known or suspected terrorists" to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Piehota is being sued in his official capacity, only.
30. Defendant Steven Mabeus is the current Principal Deputy Director of the Terrorist Screening Center ("TSC"). Defendant Mabeus was appointed in October, 2013. Defendant Mabeus develops and maintains the federal government's consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the "watch list"), and accepts nominations of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens made to the federal watch list Defendant Mabeus also oversees the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of "known or suspected terrorists" to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 9 of 53 PageID# 9
of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Mabeus is being sued in his official capacity, only.
31. Defendant G. Clayton Grigg is the current Deputy Director of Operations of the Terrorist Screening Center ("TSC"). Defendant Grigg began serving in September, 2013. Defendant Grigg developed and maintained the federal government's consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the "watch list"), and accepted nominations of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens made to the federal watch list. Defendant Grigg also oversaw the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of "known or suspected terrorists" to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Grigg is being sued in his official capacity, only.
32. Defendant James Kennedy is the Director of the Office of Transportation Security Redress (OTSR), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Defendant Kennedy also serves as the Director of the DHS Traveler Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP). Defendant Kennedy is responsible for overseeing DHS TRIP, the administrative complaint process to challenge nominations of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens made to the federal watch list, and coordinating with other government agencies, including the Terrorism Screening Center, to resolve the complaint. Defendant Kennedy is being sued in his official capacity, only.
33. Defendant Matthew G. Olsen is Director of the National Counterterrorism
Center ("NCTC"). Defendant Olsen is responsible for Defendant the nominations that

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 10 of 53 PageID# 10
resulted in the placement of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens on the federal watch list. Olsen is being sued in his official capacity, only.
lurisdiction and Venue
34. Under U.S. Const Art 111 §2, this Court has jurisdiction because the rights sought to be protected herein are secured by the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents ofFederal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 [1971), et seq., 5 U.S.C. § 702, 5 U.S.C. § 706, the United States
Constitution, and federal common law.
35. This action seeks declaratory relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § § 2201-02, Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and pursuant to the general, legal, and equitable powers of this Court
36. This action also seeks damages pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1357.
37. A substantial part of the unlawful acts alleged herein were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
38. Venue is proper under 42 U.S.C. § 1391(e) as to all Defendants because Defendants are officers or employees of agencies of the United States sued in their individual capacities and because this judicial district is where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred.
10

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 11 of 53 PageID# 11
Factual Background
The Federal Government's Terrorist Watch List
39. In September, 2003, Attorney General John Ashcroft established the Terrorist Screening Center ("TSC") to consolidate the government's approach to terrorism screening. The TSC, which is administered by the FBI, develops and maintains the federal government's consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the "watch list"). TSC's consolidated watch list is the federal government's master repository for suspected international and domestic terrorist records used for watch list related screening.
40. The watch list has two primaiy components: the Selectee List and the No-Fly List Persons on the Selectee List, including many of Plaintiffs, are systematically subject to extra screening at airports and land border crossings, and often find "SSSS" on their boarding passes printed by airline employees which is marked to indicate a passenger's watch list status to airline employees and screeners. Persons on the No-Fly List, including the remainder of Plaintiffs, are prevented from boarding flights that fly into, out of, or even through United States airspace.
41. TSC disseminates records from its terrorist watch list to other government agencies that in turn use those records to identify suspected terrorists. For example, applicable TSC records are provided to TSA for use by airlines in pre-screening passengers and to CBP for use in screening travelers entering the United States by land.
42. Upon information and belief, TSC disseminated the records of Plaintiffs from its terrorist watch list to other government agencies, including the TSA for use by airlines in
pre-screening Plaintiffs, and CBP for use in screening Plaintiffs upon entering the United
States.
11

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 12 of 53 PageID# 12
43. Upon information and belief, Defendants disseminated the records pertaining to Plaintiffs from its terrorist watch list to foreign governments with the purpose and hope that those foreign governments will constrain the movement of the Plaintiffs in some
manner.
44. Upon information and belief, Defendants' intention in disseminating watch list records, including those of Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens, as widely as possible is to constrain Plaintiffs' movements, not only within the United States, but abroad as well. For example, some countries detain individuals listed on the federal watch list who enter their borders, question those individuals at the behest of United States officials, or altogether prevent those individuals from even entering those countries.
45. Thus, while the TSC maintains and controls the database of suspected terrorists, it is the front-line agencies like the TSA that carry out the screening function. In the context of air travel, when individuals make airline reservations and check in at airports, the front-line screening agency, like TSA and CBP, conducts a name-based search of the individual, including each of the Plaintiffs, to determine whether he or she is on a watch list.
46. While agencies throughout the federal government utilize the federal watch list to conduct screening, listed persons are subject to a comprehensive portfolio of consequences that cover large aspects of their lives.
47. Indeed, the federal government disseminates its federal watch list to both government authorities and private corporations and individuals with the purpose and hope that these entities and/or individuals will impose consequences on those individuals
Defendants have listed.
12

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 13 of 53 PageID# 13

48. Upon information and belief, the status of Plaintiffs and similarly situated

American citizens as known or suspected terrorists on the federal watch list diminishes and

even imperils their ability to access the financial system.

49. Banks have closed the bank accounts ofindividuals listed on the federal watch

list and financial companies have declined to allow some listed individuals to make wire

transfers.
50.

Moreover, upon information and belief, the citizenship and green card

applications of Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens are delayed indefinitely

due to an "FBI name check" and not adjudicated, thereby denying Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens of the rights the flow from citizenship, including the ability to

travel freely as a United States citizen and to sponsor for lawful permanent residency

immediate relatives living abroad.

51. Among the entities and individuals that the federal government disseminates

its federal watch list are state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations,

private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among others.

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, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and

individuals.
53. Because the federal government disseminates its federal watch list to foreign

governments, listed persons, including Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens, are often not allowed to enter other nations. This is because the United States is telling other

13

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 14 of 53 PageID# 14
nations, without any modicum of due process, that thousands of its own citizens are "known or suspected terrorists."
54. The federal government disseminates its federal watch list to state and local police officers, including Plaintiffs, which allows those officers to query the names of persons, if for example, the listed individual is pulled over for routine traffic violations.
55. Disseminating the federal watch list to state and local police officers creates a dangerous situation insofar as the federal watch list effectively directs state and local officers to treat thousands of Americans, including Plaintiffs, charged or convicted with no crime yet listed as a "known or suspected terrorist" and as extremely dangerous.
56. With the advent and deployment of automatic license plate readers by police 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
situated American citizens.
57. Being on the federal watch list can prevent listed persons, including Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens, from purchasing a gun. For example. New Jersey 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 prevent individuals whose names are included on the federal watch list, such as Plaintiffs, from being able to buy a gun in the state of Connecticut.
58. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens are unable to purchase guns in states that ban persons on the federal watch list from owning guns.
59. Because the federal government conducts a security risk assessment that includes querying the federal watch list prior to issuing a license to commercial drivers to
14

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 15 of 53 PageID# 15
transport hazardous materials, being on the federal watch list can prevent listed persons, including Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens, from obtaining or renewing
their Hazmat license.
60. Being on the federal watch list can also prevent listed persons, including Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens, from accompanying minors or passengers with disabilities to their gate, from working at an airport, or working for an airline insofar as listed persons are not allowed to enter so-called "sterile areas" of airports.
61. Being on the federal watch list can also result in the denial or revocation of a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) license of Plaintiffs and similarly situated American
citizens.
62. Although TSA, CBP, and other agencies may use the records provided by the TSC, it is the TSC that maintains and controls the database of suspected terrorists.
63. Two government entities, including the Unidentified FBI Agents and Unidentified TSC Agents employed by those government entities, are primarily responsible for "nominating" individuals for inclusion in the terrorist watch list—the NCTC and the FBI. The NCTC, which is managed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, relies on information from other federal departments and agencies when including alleged known or suspected international terrorists in its Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment ("TIDE") database. The NCTC reviews TIDE entries and recommends specific entries to the TSC for
inclusion in the watch list. TIDE is the main source of all international terrorist information included in the watch list.
64. The FBI, including the Unidentified FBIAgents, in turn, nominates to the watch list individuals with what it characterizes as suspected ties to domestic terrorism. TSC,
15

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 16 of 53 PageID# 16
including Defendant Healy and Unidentified TSC Agents, makes the final decision on whether a nominated individual meets the minimum requirements for inclusion into the watch list as a known or suspected terrorist TSC also decides which screening systems will receive the
information about that individual.
65. Defendant Healy has testified that in evaluating whether an individual meets
the criteria for inclusion on the consolidated watch list, the TSC determines whether the
nominated individual is "reasonably suspected" of having possible links to terrorism. According to the TSC, "reasonable suspicion requires articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences, reasonably warrant the determination that an individual is known or suspected to be or has been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in and of
or related to terrorism and terrorist activities."
66. Defendants have not stated publicly what standards or criteria are applied to determine whether an American citizen on the consolidated watch list will be placed on the No-Fly List, Selectee List ("SSSS") or other list that is distributed to the TSA, CBP or other
screening agencies. 67. The standards for watch list inclusion do not evince even internal logic.
Defendants define a "suspected terrorist" as an "individual who is reasonably suspected to be, or have been, engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism and terrorist activities based on articulable and reasonable suspicion." In other words, Defendants place American citizens on the federal watch list based upon a "reasonable suspicion" that they are "reasonably suspected" of nefarious activities. This "reasonable suspicion" based on a "reasonable suspicion" standard does not even contain internal logic.
16

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 17 of 53 PageID# 17
68. The federal government utilizes guilt-by-association as a basis for watch list inclusion. For example, the immediate relative of listed persons can be listed without any derogatory information—other than the bonds of family. Nonetheless, such designation suggests that the immediate relative is him or herself engaged in nefarious activities.
69. Being a known associate—a friend, colleague, fellow community member, etc.—of a listed individual can also provide a basis for watch list inclusion.
70. Even if an American citizen is acquitted of terrorism charges or those charges are otherwise dismissed, the federal government retains for itself the authority to continue
to include them in the watch list.
71. For reasons unknown, Defendants also place what they call "non-investigatory subjects" on the federal watch list, American citizens that they have chosen not to investigate.
72. Under these practices and standards, the number of records in the
consolidated watch list has swelled. Over 1.5 million nominations to the watch list have been
submitted by federal agencies since fiscal 2009. 73. In 2013, Defendant TSC accepted 98.96 percent of all nominations made. 74. Because of these loose standards and practices, the federal watch list's rate of
growth has increased. In fiscal 2009, there were 227,932 nominations to the watch list. In fiscal 2013, there were 468,749 nominations.
75. Upon information and belief, in 2001, there were 16 people who the federal government systematically prevented from flying. In 2013, that number increased to 47,000.
76. Once an American citizen has been placed on the watch list, the individual remains on the list until the agency that supplied the initial information in support of the
nomination determines the individual should be removed.
17

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 18 of 53 PageID# 18
77. A 2007 GAO report found that TSC rejects only approximately one percent of all nominations to the watch list.^ As such, the watch list is growing at a rate of approximately 20,000 entries per year.
78. At a March 10, 2010 Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing, Russel E. Travers, Deputy Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, stated that "[t]he entire federal government is leaning very far forward on putting people on list," and that the watch list is "getting bigger, and it will get even bigger."
79. The federal watch list also disproportionately targets American Muslims. 80. Defendants have utilized the watch list, not as a tool to enhance aviation and border security, but as a bludgeon to coerce American Muslims into becoming informants or forgoing the exercise of their rights, such as the right to have an attorney present during law enforcement questioning. 81. Public examples of this phenomenon abound. See Latif v. Holder, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85450, *19 (D. Or. June 24, 2014) (an FBI agent told Steven Washburn that he "would help remove Washburn's name from the No-Fly List if he agreed to speak to the FBI"); Id. at *21-22 (FBI agents told Ibraheim Mashal that "his name would be removed from the No-Fly List and he would receive compensation if he helped the FBI by serving as an informant."): Id at *22-23 (FBI agents offered Amir Meshal "the opportunity to serve as a government informant in exchange for assistance in removing his name from the No-Fly List"). See also Fikre v. FBI, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73174 (D. Or. May 29, 2014) (Emirati officials told Yonas Fikre that he "could not travel to the United States by air because he is on
^See United States Government AccountabilityOffice Report to Congressional Requesters entitled Terrorist Watch
List Screeriing: 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.
18

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 19 of 53 PageID# 19
the No-Fly List" and an FBI agent told Fikre that "the FBI could take steps to remove [him] from the No-Fly List if he agreed to be an informant."); Tanveer v. Holder, et al, No. 13-cv6951, Dkt. 15 (April 22, 2014) (Naveed Shinwari "declined to act as an informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and to spy on [his] own American Muslim communities and other innocent people.").
82. Almost all publicly known instances of Americans being placed on the watch list regard Muslims or persons who could be mistaken for Muslims.
83. Additionally, government records show that Dearborn, Michigan—which is 40 percent Arab—is disproportionately represented on the federal watch list In fact. Dearborn is among the top five cities in the country, alongside Chicago, Houston, New York, and San Diego, represented on the federal watch list.
84. Defendants' 2013 Watchlisting Guidance also indicates that "[t]ravel for no known lawful or legitimate purpose to a locus of terrorist activity" can be a basis for being listed. While a "locus of Terrorist Activity" is not defined by the document, upon information and belief, it likely includes any place where many Muslims reside.
85. The federal watch list's inclusion standards are so permissive and pliable and the selectee list's efficacy is at best fieetingly marginal that the inclusion standards themselves violate Plaintiffs procedural and substantive due process.
86. The federal watch list diminishes, rather than enhances, our national security because the number of innocent Americans on the list is becoming so voluminous that the purpose of having a list is significantly undermined as all are being treated as the same.
87. The consequences of being on the federal watch list are meted out publically. Members of the public can witness the extra screening to which individuals on the federal
19

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 20 of 53 PageID# 20
watch list are subject, including being pulled out of their car at gunpoint, being ordered to leave one's vehicle with one's hands held above his/her head, among other stigmatizing
measures.
88. In practice, frontline screeners disclose the status of individuals on the federal
watch list to state and local authorities, as well as airline employees. 89. The operation of the federal watch list enlists air carriers to assist the federal
government in tracking the passenger on the federal watch list. 90. Defendants apply the federal watch list against Muslim Americans in a manner
that is different from how it uses its list against people of other faith backgrounds. 91. Defendants use impermissible and inaccurate religious profiles in compiling
the federal watch list
92. Defendants who contributed to the placement of Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens on the federal watch list knew that their actions violated clearly
established federal law.
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 government must at least provide the deprived with some form of notice that a deprivation
occurred.
Inadequacy of the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program Process 94. The government entities and individuals involved in the creation, maintenance, support, modification and enforcement of the federal watch list, including Defendants, have not provided travelers, including Plaintiffs and similarly situated American
20

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 21 of 53 PageID# 21
citizens, with a fair and effective mechanism through which they can challenge the TSC's decision to place them on the terrorist watch list.
95. An individual, including Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens, who has been prevented or hindered from travel by being placed on the federal watch list has no clear avenue for redress, because no single government entity is responsible for removing an individual from the list The TSC, which is administered by the FBI, does not accept redress inquiries from the public, nor does it directly provide final disposition letters to individuals on the selectee list, including Plaintiffs on the selectee list and similarly situated American citizens, who have submitted redress inquiries. The NCTC which manages the TIDE list does not accept redress inquiries from the general public.
96. Individuals who seek redress after having been included in the terrorist watch list must submit an inquiry through the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program ("DHS TRIP"). DHSTRIP provides individuals with a "Redress Control Number."
97. DHS TRIP is the only redress "process" available to individuals included on the
terrorist watch list.
98. DHS TRIP submits traveler complaints to the TSC, which determines whether any action should be taken. The TSC has not provided any publicly available information
about how it makes that decision. The TSC is the final arbiter of whether an individual's
name is retained on or removed from the watch list, including those of Plaintiffs and similarly
situated American citizens.
99. The TSC makes a determination regarding a particular individual's status on the watch list, including Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens, and DHS in turn responds to the individual with a standard form letter that neither confirms nor denies the
21

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 22 of 53 PageID# 22
existence of any terrorist watch list records relating to the individual. The letters do not set forth any basis for inclusion in a terrorist watch list, do not state whether the government has resolved the complaint at issue.
100. The government does not provide an American citizen with any opportunity to confront, or to rebut, the grounds for his or her possible inclusion on the watch list. As such, DHS TRIP offers no meaningful review of the watch list designation and in effect shields the TSC's actions with respect to the individual nominations or classes of nominations from meaningful review by any independent authority.
101. Moreover, the government's own internal audits of the system point to serious flaws. For example, a March 2008 DOJ Office of the Inspector General report entitled Audit of the U.S. Department ofJustice Terrorism Watchlist Nomination Processes found significant problems with the nomination and removal process.
102. Thus, the only "process" available to such individuals is to submit their names and other identifying information to a government entity that has no authority to provide redress and to hope that an unspecified government agency corrects an error or changes its
mind.
103. As alleged below, each of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens are designated on the watch list.
PlaintiffAnas Elhady 104. Mr. Anas Elhady is routinely referred to secondary inspection, handcuffed and detained by CBP at land border crossings when he attempts to re-enter the United States
from Canada.
22

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 23 of 53 PageID# 23
105. CBP officers routinely subject him to a prolonged detention and questioning for approximately four to twelve hours each time.
106. Moreover, he is routinely asked questions about his religious beliefs and practices, what sect of Islam he belongs to, what mosque he prays in, among other things.
107. Moreover, every time Mr. Elhady travels by air, his boarding pass is stamped with the "SSSS" designation, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected
terrorist"
108. Mr. Elhady filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 109. On May 11, 2015, Mr. Elhady received a letter as described in paragraph 99 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 110. Shortly afterwards, Mr. Elhady was again referred to secondary inspection, handcuffed and detained by CBPat the border stop at the Ambassador Bridge Port of Entry in Detroit, Michigan, for approximately six hours when he attempted to re-enter the United
States after a brief vacation in Canada.
111. After the CBP officers confiscated Mr. Elhady's jacket and shoes, they detained him in a small, freezing cold holding cell with bright lights.
112. After several hours, Mr. Elhady knocked on the door repeatedly and begged for someone to help him. His pleas for help were ignored.
113. Afterwards, his body began shaking uncontrollably and he fell unconscious. 114. CBP officers finally opened the door and woke him up. 115. Mr. Elhady repeatedly begged for an ambulance to take him to the hospital, but his pleas were ignored.
23

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 24 of 53 PageID# 24
116. Finally, Mr. Elhady was taken to an ambulance, only to be handcuffed to the
bed inside the ambulance.
117. Mr. Elhady was taken to a local hospital, where he was handcuffed to a chair in the waiting room of the hospital.
118. After being attended to by nurses and physicians, and prescribed the medication that he needed, Mr. Elhady was again handcuffed to a chair inside a vehicle and transported back to the Ambassador Bridge.
119. On December 2, 2015, FBI Special Agent Josh Allen contacted Mr. Elhady and informed him that his phone was being tapped and that all his calls were being listened to by
the FBI.
120. Mr. Elhady's boarding pass continues to be stamped with the "SSSS" designation when travels by air, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected terrorist."
121. Additionally, every time Mr. Elhady travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning.
122. At no time was Mr. Elhady given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
123. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Elhady given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
124. Upon information and belief, Mr. Elhady remains on the federal watch list.
24

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 25 of 53 PageID# 25
125. Upon information and belief, Mr. Elhady's nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities).
Plaintiff Osama Hussein Ahmed
126. On or about February or March, 2011, Mr. Osama Ahmed appeared at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport, upon returning home on a commercial flight from Yemen.
127. Mr. Ahmed was escorted from the gate to an interrogation room and interrogated by FBI agents for approximately six to seven hours.
128. The FBI agents confiscated his USB drive that he had with him, and upon
information and belief, downloaded the information from his USB drive.
129. Several days later, FBI agents, including Special Agent Joel Kelso, appeared at
Mr. Ahmed's home.
130. The FBI agents took him to a nearby bd's Mongolian Grill, and attempted to recruit Mr. Ahmed into becoming an informant in Yemen.
131. The FBI agents tried to entice Mr. Ahmed, who was only 18 years old at the time, into becoming an informant by offering to teach him how to sky dive, among other things.
132. Special Agent Kelso informed Mr.Ahmed that his name was on the No-Fly List, and that if he cooperated, his name would be removed from the list
133. On April 29,2011, Mr. Ahmed filed a complaint through DHS TRIP. 134. On May 2, 2011, Mr. Ahmed's attorney spoke with Special Agent Kelso who informed her at that time that there was no basis to include Mr. Ahmed on the No-Fly List, and that he would make arrangements to remove his name from the federal watch list.
25

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 26 of 53 PageID# 26
135. On May 10,2011, Special Agent Kelso informed his attorney that Mr. Ahmed's name was removed from the No-Fly List
136. As a result of being added to the No-Fly List, Mr. Ahmed was unable to apply for employment at the airport where his brother was employed at the time until his name was removed from the No-Fly List
137. Upon information and belief, Mr. Ahmed's name was added to the No-Fly List in order to leverage his status on the federal watch list to put pressure on Mr. Ahmed to act
as an informant in Yemen.
138. On or about 2015, Mr. Ahmed's boarding passes are now stamped with the "SSSS" designation, indicating that he has been once again designated as a "known or suspected terrorist"
139. At no time was Mr. Ahmed given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
140. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Ahmed given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
141. Upon information and belief, Mr. Ahmed remains on the federal watch list 142. Upon information and belief, Mr. Ahmed's nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities).
26

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 27 of 53 PageID# 27
Plaintiff Ahmad Ibrahim A1 Halabi
143. Every time Mr. Ahmad A1 Halabi travels by air, since 2004, his boarding pass is stamped with the "SSSS" designation, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected terrorist"
144. Moreover, Mr. A1 Halabi is frequently unable to board his flights until he is "cleared" by DHS to board the flight, a process that oftentimes takes hours.
145. Moreover, Mr. A1 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. A1 Halabi was surrounded by armed CBP officers, handcuffed in front of his children and detained in a freezing cold holding cell for approximately two to three hours and in the waiting area for another three to four hours at the Ambassador Bridge port of entry in Detroit, Michigan, when he attempted to re-enter the
United States after a brief vacation in Canada.
147. CBP officers confiscated his phone, and upon information and belief, the CBP officers downloaded the data from his phone.
148. Mr. A1 Halabi no longer travels by air nor does he travel to Canada by land unless absolutely necessary for business purposes in order to avoid being subjected to the
above treatment.
149. Mr. A1 Halabi filed multiple redress requests through DHSTRIP. 150. Mr. A1 Halabi received multiple letters as described in paragraph 99 above and was assigned multiple Redress Control Numbers.
27

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 28 of 53 PageID# 28
151. At no time was Mr. A1 Halabi given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
152. Moreover, at no time was Mr. A1 Halabi given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
153. Mr. A1 Halabi's boarding passes continue to be stamped with the "SSSS" designation every time he travels by air.
154. Additionally, every time Mr. A1 Halabi travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning.
155. Upon information and belief, Mr. A1 Halabi remains on the federal watch list. 156. Upon information and belief, Mr. A1 Halabi's nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch [based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities).
Plaintiff Michael Edmund Coleman
157. On or about May 2, 2015, Mr. Michael Edmund Coleman appeared at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport, in order to board a commercial flight for his trip to Doha International Airport.
158. Mr. Coleman was unable to check in online or at a kiosk stationed at the
airport 159. He approached an airline representative to be checked in manually, and after
speaking on the phone with a DHS representative to obtain clearance before he could fly, his boarding pass was stamped with the "SSSS" designation, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected terrorist."
28

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 29 of 53 PageID# 29
160. During Mr. Coleman's flight connection at the Philadelphia International Airport, Mr. Coleman was unable to board his next flight until he was once again "cleared" by DHS to board the flight.
161. Mr. Coleman filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 162. As of the date of this filing, Mr. Coleman has not received a response from DHS, nor has he been assigned a Redress Control Number. 163. Mr. Coleman's boarding passes continue to be stamped with the "SSSS" designation every time he travels by air. 164. Additionally, every time Mr. Coleman travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches, questioning and chemical testing. 165. Mr. Coleman is frequently interrogated about his religious activities. 166. At no time was Mr. Coleman given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 167. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Coleman given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights. 168. Upon information and belief, Mr. Coleman remains on the federal watch list. 169. Mr. Coleman limits travels by air and by land to Canada when necessary for business purposes in order to avoid being subjected to the above treatment. 170. Upon information and belief, Mr. Coleman's nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities).
29

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 30 of 53 PageID# 30
PlaintiffWael Hakmeh
171. On or about April, 2014, Mr. Wael Hakmeh appeared at Chicago O'Hare International Airport upon returning on a flight from a business trip in Turkey.
172. He was referred to secondary screening and subjected to a prolonged interrogation.
173. Additionally, to the best of his recollection, in June, 2014, his boarding pass was stamped with the "SSSS" designation for the first time, indicating that he was designated as a "known or suspected terrorist."
174. On or about October, 2014, Mr. Hakmeh appeared to have been removed from the watch list, as his boarding pass for his flight was not stamped with the "SSSS" designation.
175. However, since approximately January, 2016, Mr. Hakmeh's boarding passes are stamped with the "SSSS" designation every time he travels by air.
176. Additionally, every time Mr. Hakmeh travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning.
177. At no time was Mr. Hakmeh given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
178. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Hakmeh given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
179. Upon information and belief, Mr. Hakmeh remains on the federal watch list. 180. Mr. Hakmeh no longer connects through Chicago O'Hare International Airport to Detroit Metropolitan Airport when returning home to Michigan from overseas travel. Rather, Mr. Hakmeh drives from Chicago O'Hare International Airport for approximately five
30

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 31 of 53 PageID# 31
hours to his home in Wayne County, Michigan each time in order to avoid being subjected to the above treatment at multiple airports and risk arriving late to his place of employment.
181. Upon information and belief, Mr. Hakmeh's nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities).
PlaintiffMurat Frljuckic 182. On or about October, 2012, Mr. Murat Frljuckic was referred to secondary inspection, handcuffed and detained by CBP at the border stop at the Blue Water Bridge Port of Entry in Port Huron, Michigan, when he attempted to re-enter the United States after a
brief vacation in Canada.
183. CBP officers subjected him to a prolonged detention and questioning for approximately three to four hours.
184. Similarly, on or about August, 2014, Mr. Frljuckic was referred to secondary inspection, handcuffed and detained by CBPat the border stop at the Blue Water Bridge Port of Entry in Port Huron, Michigan, when he attempted to re-enter the United States after a brief vacation in Montenegro.
185. Moreover, every time Mr. Frljuckic travels by air, since approximately March or April, 2012, his boarding pass is stamped with the "SSSS" designation, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected terrorist."
186. Mr. Frljuckic filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 187. As of the date of this filing, Mr. Frljuckic has not received a response from DHS, nor has he been assigned a Redress Control Number.
31

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 32 of 53 PageID# 32
188. Mr. Frljuckic's boarding passes continue to be stamped with the "SSSS" designation every time he travels by air.
189. Additionally, every time Mr. Frljuckic travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning.
190. At no time was Mr. Frljuckic given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
191. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Frljuckic given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
192. Upon information and belief, Mr. Frljuckic remains on the federal watch list. 193. Mr. Frljuckic no longer travels by air nor does he travel to Canada by land in order to avoid being subjected to the above treatment. 194. Upon information and belief, Mr. Frljuckic's nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities).
PlaintiffAdnan Khalil Shaout
195. Every time Mr. Adnan Shaout travels by air, since 2004, his boarding pass is stamped with the "SSSS" designation, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected terrorist."
196. Mr. Shaout is frequently interrogated about his religious beliefs and affiliation with religious groups during secondary inspections.
197. Moreover, Mr. Shaout is frequently unable to board his flights until he is "cleared" by DHS to board the flight, a process that oftentimes takes hours.
32

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 33 of 53 PageID# 33
198. Moreover, TSA agents often confiscate his laptop, and upon information and belief, download information from his laptop.
199. On or about, June 23, 2011, while Mr. Shaout was sitting in the plane waiting for take-off, despite having been thoroughly screened by TSA, TSA agents removed Mr. Shaout from the plane and conducted another extensive pat down and search of his personal belongings.
200. The entire flight was delayed until the TSAagents completed this search. 201. Mr. Shaout no longer travels by air in the United States in order to avoid being subjected to the above treatment 202. Mr. Shaout filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 203. On November 5, 2015, Mr. Shaout received a letter as described in paragraph 99 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 204. Mr. Shaout's boarding pass continues to be stamped with the "SSSS" designation when travels by air, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected terrorist." 205. Additionally, every time Mr. Shaout travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning. 206. At no time was Mr. Shaout given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 207. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Shaout given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights. 208. Upon information and belief, Mr. Shaout remains on the federal watch list.
33

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 34 of 53 PageID# 34
209. Upon information and belief, Mr. Shaout's nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities).
210. Mr. Shaout no longer travels by air in order to avoid being subjected to the
above treatment. Plaintiff Saleem Ali
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, when he attempted to re-enter the United States after a brief vacation in Canada.
212. CBPofficers confiscated his two phones, asked him for his passwords to access the two phones, and upon information and belief, the CBPofficers downloaded the data from his phones.
213. CBP officers kept his phones and did not return them until the following day. 214. Moreover, every time Mr. Ali travels by air, his boarding pass is stamped with the "SSSS" designation, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected
terrorist."
215. Additionally, every time Mr. Ali travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning.
216. Mr. Ali filed a redress request through DHSTRIP. 217. Mr. Ali received a letter as described in paragraph 99 above and was assigned
a Redress Control Number.
34

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 35 of 53 PageID# 35
218. At no time was Mr. Ali given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
219. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Ali given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
220. Upon information and belief, Mr. Ali remains on the federal watch list. 221. Upon information and belief, Mr. Ali's nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, familial status or First Amendment protected activities).
PlaintiffShahir Anwar 222. Mr. Shahir Anwar is the brother of Plaintiff Mr. Samir Anwar.
223. Every time Mr. Anwar travels by air, since 2014, his boarding pass is stamped with the "SSSS" designation, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected
terrorist"
224. Additionally, every time Mr. Anwar travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning.
225. Mr. Anwar filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 226. On March 23, 2015, Mr. Anwar received a letter as described in paragraph 99 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 227. Mr. Anwar's boarding passes continue to be stamped with the "SSSS" designation every time he travels by air.
35

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 36 of 53 PageID# 36
228. At no time was Mr. Anwar given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
229. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Anwar given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
230. Upon information and belief, Mr. Anwar remains on the federal watch list. 231. Mr. Anwar no longer travels by air nor does he travel to Canada by land in order to avoid being subjected to the above treatment or the treatment experienced by his brother. Plaintiff Samir Anwar, described below. 232. Upon information and belief, Mr. Anwar's nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, familial or First Amendment protected activities).
PlaintiffSamir Anwar 233. Mr. Samir Anwar is the brother of Plaintiff Mr. Shahir Anwar.
234. Every time Mr. Anwar travels by air, his boarding pass is stamped with the "SSSS" designation, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected
terrorist"
235. Mr. Anwar filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 236. On August 7, 2014, Mr. Anwar received a letter as described in paragraph 99 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 237. On or about February 22, 2015, Mr. Anwar was referred to secondary inspection and detained by CBP at the border stop at the Blue Water Bridge Port of Entry in
36

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 37 of 53 PageID# 37
Port Huron, Michigan, when he attempted to re-enter the United States after a brief trip to
Canada.
238. Mr. Anwar handed a CBP officer the letter from DHS, however the CBP officer
responded that the letter does not mean anything and does not have any impact on the
situation.
239. CBP officers confiscated his phone, asked him for his password to access the 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 religious affiliations.
241. Mr. Anwar's boarding pass continues to be stamped with the "SSSS" designation when travels by air, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected terrorist."
242. Additionally, every time Mr. Anwar travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning.
243. At no time was Mr. Anwar given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
244. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Anwar given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
245. Upon information and belief, Mr. Anwar remains on the federal watch list.
37

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 38 of 53 PageID# 38
246. Upon information and belief, Mr. Anwar's nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities).
Plaintiff John Doe No. 1 247. On or about January, 2015, Mr. John Doe No. I's boarding pass is stamped with the "SSSS" designation, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected
terrorist"
248. Additionally, every time Mr. Doe No. 1 returns to the United States from international travel, Mr. Doe is subjected to prolonged detention and questioning.
249. Suddenly, shortly after Mr. Doe No. 1 was designated on the federal watch list, many of his individual and business bank accounts were closed without notice or an explanation ofthe reasons why they were being closed, including bank accounts at JPMorgan
Chase Bank, TCF Bank and PNC Bank.
250. Upon information and belief. Unidentified TSC Agents disseminated the stigmatizing label of "known or suspected terrorist" attached to Mr. Doe No. 1 to JPMorgan Chase Bank, TCF Bank and PNC Bank, and as a result, his bank accounts were closed without
notice.
251. Mr. Doe No. 1 filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 252. As of the date of this filing, Mr. Doe No. 1 has not received a response from DHS, nor has he been assigned a Redress Control Number. 253. At no time was Mr. Doe No. 1 given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
38

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 39 of 53 PageID# 39
254. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Doe No. 1 given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
255. Upon information and belief, Mr. Doe No. 1 remains on the federal watch list. 256. Upon information and belief, Mr. Doe's No. 1 nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities).
Plaintiff John Doe No. 2 257. On or about May, 2010, Mr. John Doe No. 2 appeared at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport upon returning on a flight from a trip to Turkey.
258. He was referred to secondary screening and subjected to a prolonged interrogation.
259. During his interrogation, CBP officers began looking through pictures on Mr. Doe No. 2's laptop and asked him questions about his place of worship, the religious leader at his mosque, whether Mr. Doe No. 2 knew anyone who was involved in terrorist activities, and whether he had information about other congregants at his place of worship.
260. Every time Mr. Doe No. 2 travels by air, since his May, 2010 trip, his boarding pass is stamped with the "SSSS" designation, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected terrorist"
261. Additionally, every time Mr. Doe No. 2 travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning.
262. Mr. Doe No. 2 filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 263. On January 19,2016, Mr. Doe No. 2 received a letter as described in paragraph 99 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number.
39

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 40 of 53 PageID# 40
264. At no time was Mr. Doe No. 2 given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
265. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Doe No. 2 given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
266. As of the date of this filing, it is unclear whether Mr. Doe No. 2 remains on the
federal watch list
267. Upon information and belief, Mr. Doe No. 2's nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities).
Plaintiff John Doe No. 3 268. Every time Mr. John Doe No. 3 travels by air, since 2002, his boarding pass is stamped with the "SSSS" designation, indicating that he has been designated as a "known or suspected terrorist" 269. In fact, in 2002, upon returning from an international flight, Mr. Doe No. 3 was escorted off of the plane by FBI agents, before he was interrogated and threatened by agents from different government agencies. 270. Mr. Doe No. 3 is frequently unable to board his flights until he is "cleared" by DHS to board the flight, a process that can take hours. 271. Moreover, Mr. Doe No. 3 is frequently called over the loud speakers at the airport after he has already reached the gate prior to take off to go back to security, only to be detained and subjected to further prolonged interrogations and searches.
40

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 41 of 53 PageID# 41
272. Additionally, TSAagents confiscated his phones, requested his passwords, and upon information and belief, downloaded information from them.
273. On or about 2006, Mr. Doe No. 3's JPMorgan Chase Bank was suddenly closed a few days after he opened it without notice or an explanation of the reasons why it was being closed.
274. Upon information and belief, Unidentified TSC Agents disseminated the stigmatizing label of "known or suspected terrorist" attached to Mr. Doe No. 3 to JPMorgan
Chase Bank, and as a result, his bank account was closed without notice.
275. Mr. Doe No. 3 lost lucrative employment opportunities as a result of being designated as a "known or suspected terrorist"
276. Mr. Doe No. 3 filed a redress request through DHSTRIP. 277. As of the date of this filing, Mr. Doe No. 3 has not received a response from DHS, nor has he been assigned a Redress Control Number. 278. At no time was Mr. Doe No. 3 given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 279. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Doe No. 3 given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights. 280. Upon information and belief, Mr. Doe No. 3 remains on the federal watch list. 281. Upon information and belief, Mr. Doe No. 3's nomination to the federal watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities).
41

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 42 of 53 PageID# 42
282. Mr. Doe No. 3 limits travels by air when necessary in order to avoid being subjected to the above treatment.
countK
FAILURE TO PROVIDE POST-DEPRIVATION NOTICE AND HEARING IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS flurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. S1331 and 5 U.S.C. g 7021
283. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein. 284. Each of the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens learned that he or she was placed on the federal watch list subsequent to being added on the federal watch list and sought to challenge such placement 285. Defendants' actions as described above in refusing to provide Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens with any notice at all of their placement which deprived Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of constitutionally protected liberty interests. 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, or First Amendment protected activities." 49 U.S.C. § 114(h)(3). 287. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens have a liberty interest in traveling free from unreasonable burdens that are not reasonably tailored within, to, and from the United States, through land border crossings and over U.S. air space. 288. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens have a right to be free from false government stigmatization as individuals who are "known or suspected to be" terrorists, or who are otherwise associated with terrorist activity, when such harm arises in
42

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 43 of 53 PageID# 43
conjunction with the additional consequences that follow from being listed as well as the 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
unreasonable burdens.
289. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens have a liberty interest in nonattainder (ie: the interest against being singled out for punishment without trial). Defendants' actions have singled out Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for punishments that include, but are not limited to, inability to travel by air and unreasonable burdens placed upon traveling by air to and from the United States, over U.S. air space and at land border crossings, and false association with a list of individuals suspected of terrorism.
290. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens, having been burdened or prevented from boarding on commercial flights or entering the United States at land border crossings, having had their bank accounts closed, having been prevented from 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 placement on the federal watch list and a meaningful opportunity to contest their continued inclusion on the federal watch list. Defendants have even failed to provide the most basic ingredient of due process, which is notice that the government has deprived a person of their protected rights.
43

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 44 of 53 PageID# 44
291. Moreover, Defendants have officially imposed on Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens the stigmatizing label of "known or suspected terrorists" without a constitutionally adequate legal mechanism.
292. Further, Defendants disseminated the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of "known or suspected terrorists" to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
293. By imposing on Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens the stigmatizing label of "known or suspected terrorists" and by failing to provide Plaintiffs and others similarly situated with a constitutionally adequate legal mechanism. Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of their protected liberty interests, including but not limited to their liberty interests in traveling, freedom from false stigmatization, and nonattainder, and thus violated the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens without affording them due process of law and will continue to do so into the future if Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American
citizens are not afforded the relief demanded below.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory and injunctive relief in the form described in the Prayer for Relief below, plus all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys' fees incurred in this action.
COUNT II DEPRIVATION OF PROTECTED LIBERTIES IN VIOLATION OF FIFTH AMENDMENT
RIGHT TO SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS flurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. S 1331 and 5 U.S.C. g 7021
294. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein.
44

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 45 of 53 PageID# 45
295. Because Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens were listed 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 commercial flights or entering the United States at land border crossings, are arbitrary and capricious, lack even a rational relationship to any legitimate government interest, and have unduly deprived Plaintiffs of constitutionally protected rights, including their liberty interests in travel, freedom from false stigmatization, and nonattainder.
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, or First Amendment protected activities." 49 U.S.C. § 114(h)(3).
297. By placing Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens on the federal watch list, Defendants have placed an undue burden on their fundamental right of
movement
298. By placing Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens on the
federal watch list, Defendants have treated Plaintiffs like second-class citizens.
299. Defendants' watch list lacks a compelling interest insofar as their true purpose is to provide law enforcement with a tool to coerce American Muslims into becoming
informants.
300. Defendants' watch list are also not narrowly tailored insofar as the federal watch list are entirely and demonstrably ineffectual and obvious alternatives exist.
45

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 46 of 53 PageID# 46
301. Defendants' actions in placing Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens on the federal watch list, officially imposing on Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens the stigmatizing label of "known or suspected terrorists," and disseminating the stigmatizing label to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals, without a constitutionally adequate legal mechanism, are arbitraiy and capricious, shock the conscience, violate the decencies of civilized conduct and are so brutal and offensive that they do not comport with the traditional ideas of fair play and decency.
302. Because Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens have not been charged with any crimes and are United States Citizens, Plaintiffs challenge their placement and the placement of others similarly situated American citizens on the federal watch list on a broad, as-applied basis.
303. Plaintiffs' substantive due process challenge is also facial, as there are no circumstances where their placement or the placement of others similarly situated on the federal watch list is narrowly tailored to achieve any compelling government interest.
304. Defendants have thus violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights and the constitutional rights of other similarly situated American citizens without affording them due process of law and will continue to do so into the future if Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated American citizens are not afforded the relief demanded below.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory and injunctive relief in the form described in the Prayer for Relief below, plus all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys' fees incurred in this action.
46

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 47 of 53 PageID# 47
COUNT in UNLAWFUL AGENCY ACTION IN VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ACT,5U.S.C. §§ 702,706
flurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. S 1331 and 5 U.S.C. S 7021
305. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein. 306. Defendants' actions in placing Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens on the federal watch list, officially imposing on Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens the stigmatizing label of "known or suspected terrorists," and disseminating the stigmatizing label to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains of sea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals, without a constitutionally adequate legal mechanism, were and are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, otherwise not in accordance with law, and contrary to constitutional rights, power, privilege, or immunity, and should be set aside as unlawful pursuant to 5 U.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, or First Amendment protected activities." 49 U.S.C. § 114(h)(3). 308. Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens, who had been unreasonably burdened or denied boarding on commercial flights or entering the United States across the border and sought to challenge their placement on the federal watch list, with a constitutionally adequate mechanism that affords them notice of 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,
47

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 48 of 53 PageID# 48
capricious, an abuse of discretion, otherwise not in accordance with law, and contrary to constitutional rights, power, privilege, or immunity, and should be set aside as unlawful pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706.
309. Because Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens do not present a security threat to commercial aviation, Defendants' actions as described above in including Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens on the federal watch list that unreasonably burdens or prevents them from boarding commercial flights or entering the United States across the border, are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, otherwise not in accordance with law, and contrary to constitutional rights, power, privilege, or immunity, and should be set aside as unlawful pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706.
310. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens are not required to exhaust the DHS TRIP process, under the holding in Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993). See United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. ll-cv-00050 (2011); Dkt 70 at 22; attached as Memorandum Opinion (Exhibit 4).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory and injunctive relief in the form described in the Prayer for Relief below, plus all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys' fees incurred in this action.
count IV
VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION flurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. S 1331 and 5 U.S.C. S 7021
fEqual Protection) 311. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein.
48

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 49 of 53 PageID# 49
312. Defendants' actions in placing Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens on the federal watch list, officially imposing on Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens the stigmatizing label of "known or suspected terrorists," and disseminating the stigmatizing label to state and local authorities, foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, gun sellers, the captains ofsea-faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals, without a constitutionally adequate legal mechanism are discriminatory and constitute an action that targets religious conduct for
distinctive treatment.
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, or First Amendment protected activities." 49 U.S.C. § 114(h)(3).
314. By placing Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens on the federal watch list. Defendants have treated Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American
citizens like second-class citizens.
315. Defendants' above-described actions were motivated by the religious status of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens and on the basis of the constitutionally-protected free exercise of religion of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
American citizens.
316. Defendants' above-described actions have had a discriminatory effect upon and have disparately impacted Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens who are Muslim American travelers, and not travelers of other faiths.
49

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 50 of 53 PageID# 50
317. Defendants' above-described actions, policies, course of conduct, or pattern of practice that mandate or permit the above-described treatment of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens does not serve a compelling state interest or a legitimate or public purpose, nor are they the least restrictive means or narrowly tailored to achieve any such interest.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory and injunctive relief in the form described in the Prayer for Relief below, plus all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys' fees incurred in this action.
COUNTV VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
(Non-Delegation) 318. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein. 319. Congress has not provided the Executive Branch with intelligible principles from which the Executive can implement its watch list schemes regarding civil aviation and national security. 320. The Executive branch's assignment of the watch listing function to TSC violates Congress' directive that ISA determine who belongs on federal watch lists and the consequences that flow from being on those lists. 321. Congress has not delegated to TSA the authority to create a process that can
culminate in the removal of individuals from the TSDB.
322. In the alternative. Congress's delegation to TSA to create a redress process is defective because the Executive Branch has allocated watch list authority in a manner that prevents TSA from creating a redress process.
50

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 51 of 53 PageID# 51
323. As a result, Defendants have illegally acted beyond their authority. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory and injunctive relief in the form described in the Prayer for Relief below, plus all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys' fees incurred in this action.
Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request:
1. A declaratory judgment that Defendants' policies, practices, and customs violate
the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Administrative
Procedure Act; 2. An injunction that:
a. requires Defendants to remedy the constitutional and statutory violations identified above, including the removal of Plaintiffs from any watch list or database that burdens or prevents them from flying or entering the United
States across the border; and,
b. requires Defendants to provide individuals designated on the federal watch list with a legal mechanism that affords them notice of 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;
3. A trial by jury; 4. An award of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses of all litigation, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2412; and, 5. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
51

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 52 of 53 PageID# 52

lURV DEMAND
NOW COME Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned counsel, and hereby demand
trial by jury of the above-referenced causes of action.

Dated: April 5,2016

Respectfully submitted,
FICE OF GADEIR ABBAS
BY:
GADEIR 1. ABBAS
Attorney for Plaintiffs 1155 F Street NW, Suite 1050 Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (720] 251-0425 Fax: (720) 251-0425 Email: gadeir.abbas(5)gmail.com
Licensed in Virginia, not in D.C. Practice limited to federal matters

52

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 53 of 53 PageID# 53

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A copy of the foregoing document was filed with the United States District Court for the Eastern Districtof Virginia on April 5, 2016

ABBAS

ICE OF GADEIR

BY: /s/ Gadeir Abbas

1155 F Street NW - Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (720) 251-0425 Fax: (202) 204-0253 gadeir @abbaslawfirm.com licensed in Virginia, not in D.C. practice limited to federal matters

 
 Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 1 of 94 PageID# 420

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

ANAS ELHADY;

)

BABY DOE 2, by his next friend, Father Doe 2; )

YASEEN KADURA;

)

OSAMA HUSSEIN AHMED;

)

AHMAD IBRAHIM AL HALABI;

)

MICHAEL EDMUND COLEMAN;

)

WAEL HAKMEH;

)

HASSAN SHIBLY;

)

AUSAMA ELHUZAYEL;

)

DONALD THOMAS;

)

MURAT FRLJUCKIC;

)

IBRAHIM AWAD;

)

MARK AMRI;

)

ADNAN KHALIL SHAOUT;

)

SALEEM ALI;

)

SHAHIR ANWAR;

)

SAMIR ANWAR;

)

MUHAMMAD YAHYA KHAN;

)

HASSAN FARES;

)

ZUHAIR EL‐SHWEHDI;

)

MAHMOUD ERAQI;

)

JOHN DOE NO. 1;

)

JOHN DOE NO. 2;

)

JOHN DOE NO. 3; and,

)

JOHN DOE NO. 4;

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CHRISTOPHER M. PIEHOTA, Director of the )

Terrorist Screening Center; in his official

)

capacity;

)

)

STEVEN MABEUS, Principal Deputy

)

Director of the Terrorist Screening Center;

)

in his official capacity;

)

)

G. CLAYTON GRIGG, Deputy Director of

)

Operations of the Terrorist Screening

)

Center; in his official capacity;

)

)

Case No. 16‐cv‐00375 Hon. Anthony J. Trenga
FIRST COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF AND JURY DEMAND

1

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 2 of 94 PageID# 421

JAMES G. KENNEDY, Director, Transportation )

Security Redress (OTSR), Transportation

)

Security Administration (TSA), United States )

Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and )

Director of the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry )

Program (DHS TRIP); in his official capacity; )

)

MATTHEW G. OLSEN, Director of the

)

National Counterterrorism Center, in

)

his official capacity;

)

)

PETER NEFFENGER, Administrator,

)

Transportation Security Administration

)

(TSA), United States Department of

)

Homeland Security (DHS); in his official

)

capacity;

)

)

JAMES COMEY, Director, Federal Bureau

)

of Investigation (FBI); in his official capacity; )

)

R. GIL KERLIKOWSKE, Director, United

)

States Customs and Border Protection; in

)

his official capacity;

)

)

Defendants.

)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________/

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Plaintiffs, Anas Elhady; Baby Doe 2, by his Next Friend, Father Doe 2; Yaseen

Kadura; Osama Hussein Ahmed; Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi; Michael Edmund Coleman;

Wael Hakmeh; Hassan Shibly; Ausama Elhuzayel; Donald Thomas; Murat Frljuckic;

Ibrahim Awad; Mark Amri; Adnan Khalil Shaout; Saleem Ali; Shahir Anwar; Samir

Anwar; Muhammad Yahya Khan; Hassan Fares; Zuhair El‐Shwehdi; Mahmoud Eraqi;

John Doe No. 1; John Doe No. 2; John Doe No. 3 and John Doe No. 4 for themselves and on

behalf of all others similarly situated, through their attorneys, Council on American‐Islamic

Relations, Michigan (“CAIR‐MI”), The Law Office of Gadeir Abbas, and Akeel and Valentine,

PLC, state as follows:

2

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 3 of 94 PageID# 422
Introduction 1. Our federal government is imposing an injustice of historic proportions upon the Americans who have filed this action, as well as thousands of other Americans. Through extra‐judicial and secret means, the federal government is ensnaring individuals into an invisible web of consequences that are imposed indefinitely and without recourse as a result of the shockingly large federal terror watch list that now include hundreds of thousands of individuals. 2. Indeed, many Americans, including children, end up on these secret federal terror watch list – which the Defendants have named the Terrorist Screening Database (“TSDB”) – based on mere guesses, hunches, and conjecture and even simply based on matters of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion or the exercise of their constitutional rights. 3. These consequences include the inability to fly on airplanes, to go through security without having all screeners receive a message for the remainder of a listee’s life that she is a "known or suspected terrorist," to obtain licenses, to exercise their Second Amendment right to own a firearm, and to be free from the unimaginable indignity and real‐ life danger of having their own government communicate to hundreds of thousands of federal agents, private contractors, businesses, state and local police, the captains of sea‐ faring vessels, and foreign governments all across the world that they are a violent menace. 4. And unfortunately, the federal government has designed its federal terror watch list to be accountability‐free. Persons placed on the federal terror watch list have no means of removing themselves or challenging the basis for their inclusion. Indeed, people
3

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 4 of 94 PageID# 423
on the federal terror watch lists only learn of their placement when they feel the web of consequences burdening their lives and aspirations, and they never learn why.
5. Media accounts have made clear that the secret federal terror watch list is the product of bigotry and misguided, counterproductive zeal. Americans are dumped onto the watch list without being charged, convicted, or in some stomach‐churning cases, even subject to an ongoing investigation.
6. Instead, two recently leaked government documents and a governmental report, which include the March 2013 Watchlisting Guidance (Exhibit 2), the Directorate of Terrorist Identities (DTI): Strategic Accomplishments 2013 (Exhibit 3), and the Department of Justice's March 2014 Audit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Management of Terrorist Watchlist (Exhibit 4) reveal that the care the federal government takes in creating its federal terror watch list is void of proper processing, which in turn results in life‐altering consequences that flow from these illegal actions.
7. In fact, upon information and belief, Dearborn, a city of less than 100,000 and a place Arab Americans and Muslim Americans have called home for generations, contains the second highest concentration of Americans on the federal government's watch list. Moreover, there have been more than 1.5 million nominations to the federal terror watch list since 2009 and that, in 2013 for example, the Terrorist Screening Center converted 98.96 percent of those nominations into watch list placements.
8. Upon information and belief, evidence also shows that the federal government uses guilt‐by‐association presumptions to place family members and friends of listed persons on the watch list.
4

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 5 of 94 PageID# 424
9. Moreover, travel to Muslim majority countries—travel that American Muslims are very likely to engage in—is also a basis for watch list placement.
10. In 2009, the federal government made 227,932 nominations to its federal terror watch list. In 2013, that number more than doubled at an alarming and dangerous rate to 468,749.
11. Recently, a federal court judge observed in Gulet Mohamed v. Eric R. Holder, Jr., et al. (United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 11‐cv‐00050 (2011)), that “[a] showing of past or ongoing unlawful conduct does not seem to be required,… But the Court has little, if any, ability to articulate what information is viewed by TSC as sufficiently ‘derogatory’ beyond the labels it has provided the Court. In sum, the No Fly List assumes that there are some American citizens who are simply too dangerous to be permitted to fly, no matter the level of pre‐flight screening or on‐flight surveillance and restraint, even though those citizens cannot be legally arrested, detained, or otherwise restricted in their movements or conduct.” See United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 11‐cv‐00050 (2011); Dkt. 70 at 19; attached as Memorandum Opinion (Exhibit 1).
12. Moreover, the Court went on to find that “[i]nclusion on the No Fly List also labels an American citizen a disloyal American who is capable of, and disposed toward committing, war crimes, and one can easily imagine the broad range of consequences that might be visited upon such a person if that stigmatizing designation were known by the general public… The process of nomination to the No Fly List is based on a suspected level of future dangerousness that is not necessarily related to any unlawful conduct.” See United
5

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 6 of 94 PageID# 425
States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 11‐cv‐00050 (2011); Dkt. 70 at 14, 17; attached as Memorandum Opinion (Exhibit 1).
Parties 13. Plaintiff Anas Elhady is a 22 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Wayne County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal terror watch list is compiled. 14. Plaintiff Baby Doe 2 is a 1‐year‐old United States Citizen toddler born to an American Muslim family, residing in Wayne County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal terror watch list is compiled. Plaintiff Baby Doe 2 brings this action by and through his next friend, Father Doe 2. 15. Plaintiff Yaseen Kadura is a 26 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Cook County, Illinois. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal terror watch list is compiled. 16. Plaintiff Osama Hussein Ahmed is a 24 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Wayne County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal terror watch list is compiled. 17. Plaintiff Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi is a 37 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Wayne County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of
6

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 7 of 94 PageID# 426
the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal terror watch list is compiled.
18. Plaintiff Michael Edmund Coleman is a 44 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Wayne County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal terror watch list is compiled.
19. Plaintiff Wael Hakmeh is a 37 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Oakland County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal terror watch list is compiled.
20. Plaintiff Hassan Shibly is a 29‐year‐old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Hillsborough County, Florida. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal terror watch list is compiled.
21. Plaintiff Ausama Elhuzayel is a 40‐year‐old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Orange County, California. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal terror watch list is compiled.
22. Plaintiff Donald Thomas is a 29‐year‐old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Sacramento County, California. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal terror watch list is compiled.
7

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 8 of 94 PageID# 427
23. Plaintiff Murat Frljuckic is a 37‐year‐old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Oakland County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal terror watch list is compiled.
24. Plaintiff Ibrahim Awad is a 23‐year‐old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Oakland County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal terror watch list is compiled.
25. Plaintiff Mark Amri is a 36‐year‐old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in San Bernardino County, California. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal terror watch list is compiled.
26. 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 omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal terror watch list is compiled.
27. Plaintiff Saleem Ali is a 43 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Wayne County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal terror watch list is compiled.
28. Plaintiff Shahir Anwar is a 36 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Macomb County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the
8

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 9 of 94 PageID# 428
events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal terror watch list is compiled.
29. Plaintiff Samir Anwar is a 29 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Macomb County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal terror watch list is compiled.
30. Plaintiff Muhammad Yahya Khan is a 46‐year‐old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Oakland County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal terror watch list is compiled.
31. Plaintiff Hassan Fares is a 33‐year‐old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal terror watch list is compiled.
32. Plaintiff Zuhair El‐Shwehdi is a 58‐year‐old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Montgomery County, Ohio. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal terror watch list is compiled.
33. Plaintiff Mahmoud Eraqi is a 22‐year‐old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Macomb County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal terror watch list is compiled.
9

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 10 of 94 PageID# 429
34. Plaintiff John Doe No. 1 is a 51 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Washtenaw County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal terror watch list is compiled.
35. Plaintiff John Doe No. 2 is a 38 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Oakland County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal terror watch list is compiled.
36. Plaintiff John Doe No. 3 is a 55 year old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Washtenaw County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal terror watch list is compiled.
37. Plaintiff John Doe No. 4 is a 23‐year‐old United States Citizen and a Muslim residing in Macomb County, Michigan. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this district which is where the federal terror watch list is compiled.
38. Defendant Christopher M. Piehota is the current Director of the Terrorist Screening Center (“TSC”). Defendant Piehota was appointed in April, 2013. Defendant Piehota develops and maintains the federal government’s consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the “watch list”), and accepts nominations of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens made to the federal terror watch list. Defendant Piehota also oversees the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of “known or suspected terrorists” to state and local authorities, foreign
10

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 11 of 94 PageID# 430
governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, the captains of sea‐faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Piehota is being sued in his official capacity, only.
39. Defendant Steven Mabeus is the current Principal Deputy Director of the Terrorist Screening Center (“TSC”). Defendant Mabeus was appointed in October, 2013. Defendant Mabeus develops and maintains the federal government’s consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the “watch list”), and accepts nominations of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens made to the federal terror watch list. Defendant Mabeus also oversees the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of “known or suspected terrorists” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, the captains of sea‐faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Mabeus is being sued in his official capacity, only.
40. Defendant G. Clayton Grigg is the current Deputy Director of Operations of the Terrorist Screening Center (“TSC”). Defendant Grigg began serving in September, 2013. Defendant Grigg developed and maintained the federal government’s consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the “watch list”), and accepted nominations of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens made to the federal terror watch list. Defendant Grigg also oversaw the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of “known or suspected terrorists” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, the captains of sea‐faring vessels, among
11

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 12 of 94 PageID# 431
other official and private entities and individuals. Defendant Grigg is being sued in his official capacity, only.
41. Defendant James Kennedy is the Director of the Office of Transportation Security Redress (OTSR), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Defendant Kennedy also serves as the Director of the DHS Traveler Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP). Defendant Kennedy is responsible for overseeing DHS TRIP, the administrative complaint process to challenge nominations of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens made to the federal terror watch list, and coordinating with other government agencies, including the Terrorism Screening Center, to resolve the complaint. Defendant Kennedy is being sued in his official capacity, only.
42. Defendant Matthew G. Olsen is Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (“NCTC”). Defendant Olsen is responsible for the nominations that resulted in the placement of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens on the federal terror watch list. Olsen is being sued in his official capacity, only.
43. Defendant Peter Neffenger is Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”). Defendant Neffenger oversaw the dissemination of the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of “known or suspected terrorists” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, the captains of sea‐faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. Neffenger is being sued in his official capacity, only.
12

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 13 of 94 PageID# 432
44. Defendant James Comey is Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”). Defendant Comey is responsible for nominations of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens made to the federal terror watch list. Comey is being sued in his official capacity, only.
45. Defendant R. Gil Kerlikowski is Director of the United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”). Defendant Kerlikowski is responsible for receiving and implementing the federal terror watch list. Kerlikowski is being sued in his official capacity, only.
Jurisdiction and Venue 46. Under U.S. Const. Art. III §2, this Court has jurisdiction because the rights sought to be protected herein are secured by the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), et seq., 5 U.S.C. § 702, 5 U.S.C. § 706, the United States Constitution, and federal common law. 47. This action seeks declaratory relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § § 2201‐02, Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and pursuant to the general, legal, and equitable powers of this Court. 48. This action also seeks damages pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4) and 28 U.S.C. § 1357. 49. A substantial part of the unlawful acts alleged herein were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. 50. Venue is proper under 42 U.S.C. § 1391(e) as to all Defendants because Defendants are officers or employees of agencies of the United States sued in their individual
13

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 14 of 94 PageID# 433
capacities and because this judicial district is where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred.
Factual Background The Federal Government’s Terrorist Watch List 51. In September, 2003, Attorney General John Ashcroft established the Terrorist Screening Center (“TSC”) to consolidate the government’s approach to terrorism screening. The TSC, which is administered by the FBI, develops and maintains the federal government’s consolidated Terrorism Screening Database (the “watch list”). TSC’s consolidated watch list is the federal government’s master repository for suspected international and domestic terrorist records used for watch list related screening. 52. The watch list has two primary components: the Selectee List and the No‐Fly List. Persons on the Selectee List, including many of Plaintiffs, are systematically subject to extra screening at airports and land border crossings, and often find “SSSS” on their boarding passes printed by airline employees which is marked to indicate a passenger’s watch list status to airline employees and screeners. Persons on the No‐Fly List, including the remainder of Plaintiffs, are prevented from boarding flights that fly into, out of, or even through United States airspace. 53. TSC disseminates records from its terrorist watch list to other government agencies that in turn use those records to identify listed persons. For example, applicable TSC records are provided to TSA for use by airlines in pre‐screening passengers and to CBP for use in screening travelers entering the United States by land. 54. Upon information and belief, Defendants disseminated the records of each of the Plaintiffs from its terrorist watch list to other government agencies, including the TSA
14

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 15 of 94 PageID# 434
for use by airlines in pre‐screening Plaintiffs, and CBP for use in screening Plaintiffs upon entering the United States.
55. Upon information and belief, Defendants disseminated the records pertaining to each of the Plaintiffs from its terrorist watch list to foreign governments with the purpose and hope that those foreign governments will constrain the movement of the Plaintiffs in some manner.
56. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ intention in disseminating watch list records, including those of Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens, as widely as possible is to constrain Plaintiffs’ movements, not only within the United States, but abroad as well. For example, some countries detain individuals listed on the federal terror watch list who enter their borders, question those individuals at the behest of United States officials, or altogether prevent those individuals from even entering those countries.
57. Thus, while the TSC maintains and controls the database of suspected terrorists, it is the front‐line agencies like the TSA that carry out the screening function. In the context of air travel, when individuals make airline reservations and check in at airports, the front‐line screening agency, like TSA and CBP, conducts a name‐based search of the individual, including each of the Plaintiffs, to determine whether he or she is on a watch list.
58. While agencies throughout the federal government utilize the federal terror watch list to conduct screening, listed persons are subject to a comprehensive portfolio of consequences that cover large aspects of their lives.
59. Indeed, Defendants disseminated the federal terror watch list to both government authorities and private corporations and individuals with the purpose and hope
15

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 16 of 94 PageID# 435
that these entities and/or individuals will impose consequences on those individuals Defendants have listed, including each of the Plaintiffs.
60. Upon information and belief, the status of Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens as known or suspected terrorists on the federal terror watch list diminishes and even imperils their ability to access the financial system.
61. Defendants have provided access to the federal terror watch list, and banks have closed the bank accounts of individuals listed on the federal terror watch list and financial companies have declined to allow some listed individuals to make wire transfers.
62. Moreover, upon information and belief, the citizenship and green card applications of Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens are delayed indefinitely due to an “FBI name check” and not adjudicated, thereby denying Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens of the rights the flow from citizenship, including the ability to travel freely as a United States citizen and to sponsor for lawful permanent residency immediate relatives living abroad.
63. Among the entities and individuals that the federal government disseminates its federal terror watch list are state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, the captains of sea‐faring vessels, among others.
64. In fact, two days after this action was filed, Defendant Piehota, Director of the Terrorist Screening Center, gave an exclusive interview to CNN and stated the following, in relevant part:
It's concerning that our partners don't use all of our data. We provide them with tools. We provide them with support, and I would find it concerning that they don't use these tools to help
16

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 17 of 94 PageID# 436
screen for their own aviation security, maritime security, border screening, visas, things like that for travel.1 65. Defendant Piehota went on to state that the United States shares its federal terror watch list with the European Union, but that European Union countries don't systematically utilize it to identify suspected terrorists or screen migrants coming. 66. Upon information and belief, because the names of Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens are included on the federal terror watch list, their names were disseminated to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, the captains of sea‐faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals. 67. Because the federal government disseminates its federal terror watch list to foreign governments, listed persons, including Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens, are often not allowed to enter other nations. This is because the United States is telling other nations, without any modicum of due process, that thousands of its own citizens are “known or suspected terrorists.” 68. The federal government, through Defendants, disseminates its federal terror watch list to state and local police officers, including Plaintiffs, which allows those officers to query the names of persons, if for example, the listed individual is pulled over for routine traffic violations. 69. Disseminating the federal terror watch list to state and local police officers creates a dangerous situation insofar as the federal terror watch list effectively directs state
1 First on CNN: Top U.S. intel official: Europe not taking advantage of terror tracking tools, CNN, available at: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/07/politics/christopher‐piehota‐us‐intel‐europe‐terror‐tracking/
17

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 18 of 94 PageID# 437
and local officers to treat thousands of Americans, including Plaintiffs, charged or convicted with no crime yet listed as a “known or suspected terrorist” and as extremely dangerous.
70. With the advent and deployment of automatic license plate readers by police 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 situated American citizens.
71. Being on the federal terror watch list can prevent listed persons, including Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens, from purchasing a gun. For example, New Jersey passed a law in 2013 that banned persons on the federal terror watch list from owning guns. Additionally, Connecticut is in the process of setting up an institutional mechanism to prevent individuals whose names are included on the federal terror watch list, such as Plaintiffs, from being able to buy a gun in the state of Connecticut.
72. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens are unable to purchase guns in states that ban persons on the federal terror watch list from owning guns.
73. Because the federal government conducts a security risk assessment that includes querying the federal terror watch list prior to issuing a license to commercial drivers to transport hazardous materials, being on the federal terror watch list can prevent listed persons, including Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens, from obtaining or renewing their Hazmat license.
74. Being on the federal terror watch list can also prevent listed persons, including Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens, from accompanying minors or passengers with disabilities to their gate, from working at an airport, or working for an airline insofar as listed persons are not allowed to enter so‐called “sterile areas” of airports.
18

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 19 of 94 PageID# 438
75. Being on the federal terror watch list can also result in the listing of the false stigmatizing label of “known or suspected” terrorist on the criminal records of Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens, information that is publicly accessible to the general public.
76. Defendants make the federal terror watch list available to municipal courts, which then make bail determinations based on an individual’s status on the watch list.
77. Being on the federal terror watch list can also result in the denial or revocation of a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) license of Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens.
78. Although TSA, CBP, and other agencies may use the records provided by the TSC, it is the TSC that maintains and controls the database of suspected terrorists.
79. Two government entities are primarily responsible for “nominating” individuals for inclusion in the terrorist watch list—Defendants NCTC and FBI. The NCTC, which is managed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, relies on information from other federal departments and agencies when including alleged known or suspected international terrorists in its Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (“TIDE”) database. The NCTC reviews TIDE entries and recommends specific entries to the TSC for inclusion in the watch list. TIDE is the main source of all international terrorist information included in the watch list.
80. Defendant FBI, in turn, nominates to the watch list individuals with what it characterizes as suspected ties to domestic terrorism.
81. Defendant TSC makes the final decision on whether a nominated individual meets the minimum requirements for inclusion into the watch list as a known or suspected
19

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 20 of 94 PageID# 439
terrorist. TSC also decides which screening systems will receive the information about that individual.
82. Former Director of the Terrorism Screening Center Healy has testified that in evaluating whether an individual meets the criteria for inclusion on the consolidated watch list, the TSC determines whether the nominated individual is “reasonably suspected” of having possible links to terrorism. According to the TSC, “reasonable suspicion requires articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences, reasonably warrant the determination that an individual is known or suspected to be or has been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in and of or related to terrorism and terrorist activities.”
83. Defendants have not stated publicly the entirety of what standards or criteria are applied to determine whether an American citizen on the consolidated watch list will be placed on the No‐Fly List, Selectee List (“SSSS”) or other list that is distributed to the TSA, CBP or other screening agencies.
84. The standards for watch list inclusion do not evince even internal logic. Defendants define a “suspected terrorist” as an “individual who is reasonably suspected to be, or have been, engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism and terrorist activities based on articulable and reasonable suspicion.” In other words, Defendants place American citizens on the federal terror watch list based upon a “reasonable suspicion” that they are “reasonably suspected” of nefarious activities. This “reasonable suspicion” based on a “reasonable suspicion” standard does not even contain internal logic.
85. The federal government utilizes guilt‐by‐association as a basis for watch list inclusion. For example, the immediate relative of listed persons can be listed without any
20

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 21 of 94 PageID# 440
derogatory information—other than the bonds of family. Nonetheless, such designation suggests that the immediate relative is him or herself engaged in nefarious activities.
86. Being a known associate—a friend, colleague, fellow community member, etc.—of a listed individual can also provide a basis for watch list inclusion.
87. Even if an American citizen is acquitted of terrorism charges or those charges are otherwise dismissed, the federal government retains for itself the authority to continue to include them in the watch list.
88. For reasons unknown, Defendants also place what they call “non‐investigatory subjects” on the federal terror watch list, American citizens that they have chosen not to investigate.
89. Defendants place individuals on the federal terror watch list without any information regarding an individual’s intended target.
90. Defendants place individuals on the Selectee List without any information that they pose a threat to aviation.
91. Defendants place individuals on the No Fly List without any information that they pose a threat to aviation.
92. Under these practices and standards, the number of records in the consolidated watch list has swelled. Over 1.5 million nominations to the watch list have been submitted by federal agencies since fiscal 2009.
93. In 2013, Defendant TSC accepted 98.96 percent of all nominations made. 94. Because of these loose standards and practices, the federal terror watch list’s rate of growth has increased. In fiscal 2009, there were 227,932 nominations to the watch list. In fiscal 2013, there were 468,749 nominations.
21

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 22 of 94 PageID# 441
95. Upon information and belief, in 2001, there were 16 people who the federal government systematically prevented from flying. In 2013, that number increased to 47,000.
96. Once an American citizen has been placed on the watch list, the individual remains on the list until the agency that supplied the initial information in support of the nomination determines the individual should be removed.
97. A 2007 GAO report found that TSC rejects only approximately one percent of all nominations to the watch list.2 As such, the watch list is growing at a rate of approximately 20,000 entries per year.
98. At a March 10, 2010 Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing, Russel E. Travers, Deputy Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, stated that “[t]he entire federal government is leaning very far forward on putting people on list,” and that the watch list is “getting bigger, and it will get even bigger.”
99. The federal terror watch list also disproportionately targets American Muslims.
100. Defendants have utilized the watch list, not as a tool to enhance aviation and border security, but as a bludgeon to coerce American Muslims into becoming informants or forgoing the exercise of their rights, such as the right to have an attorney present during law enforcement questioning.
101. Public examples of this phenomenon abound. See Latif v. Holder, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85450, *19 (D. Or. June 24, 2014) (an FBI agent told Steven Washburn that he “would help remove Washburn's name from the No‐Fly List if he agreed to speak to the FBI”);
2 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.
22

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 23 of 94 PageID# 442
Id. at *21‐22 (FBI agents told Ibraheim Mashal that “his name would be removed from the No‐Fly List and he would receive compensation if he helped the FBI by serving as an informant.”): Id at *22‐23 (FBI agents offered Amir Meshal “the opportunity to serve as a government informant in exchange for assistance in removing his name from the No‐Fly List.”). See also Fikre v. FBI, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73174 (D. Or. May 29, 2014) (Emirati officials told Yonas Fikre that he “could not travel to the United States by air because he is on the No‐Fly List” and an FBI agent told Fikre that “the FBI could take steps to remove [him] from the No‐Fly List if he agreed to be an informant.”); Tanveer v. Holder, et. al., No. 13‐cv‐ 6951, Dkt. 15 (April 22, 2014) (Naveed Shinwari “declined to act as an informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and to spy on [his] own American Muslim communities and other innocent people.”).
102. Almost all publicly known instances of Americans being placed on the watch list regard Muslims or persons who could be mistaken for Muslims.
103. Additionally, government records show that Dearborn, Michigan—which is 40 percent Arab—is disproportionately represented on the federal terror watch list. In fact, Dearborn is among the top five cities in the country, alongside Chicago, Houston, New York, and San Diego, represented on the federal terror watch list.
104. Due to Dearborn’s significant population of Muslims, it has earned a reputation as the “Muslim Capital of America.” In fact, almost all publicly known instances of Americans being placed on the watch list regard Muslims or persons who could be mistaken for Muslims.
105. Defendants’ 2013 Watchlisting Guidance also indicates that “[t]ravel for no known lawful or legitimate purpose to a locus of terrorist activity” can be a basis for being
23

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 24 of 94 PageID# 443
listed. While a “locus of Terrorist Activity” is not defined by the document, upon information and belief, it likely includes any place where many Muslims reside.
106. The federal terror watch list’s inclusion standards are so permissive and pliable and the selectee list's efficacy is at best fleetingly marginal that the inclusion standards themselves violate Plaintiffs procedural and substantive due process.
107. The federal terror watch list diminishes, rather than enhances, our national security because the number of innocent Americans on the list is becoming so voluminous that the purpose of having a list is significantly undermined as all are being treated as the same.
108. The consequences of being on the federal terror watch list are meted out publically. Members of the public can witness the extra screening to which individuals on the federal terror watch list are subject, including being pulled out of their car at gunpoint, being ordered to leave one's vehicle with one's hands held above his/her head, among other stigmatizing measures.
109. Because travel is regularly done with family, friends, and community and professional contacts, a person’s watch list status is revealed to travel companions. Travel companions come to learn of a person’s watch list status based on how screeners treat a listee.
110. In practice, frontline screeners disclose the status of individuals on the federal terror watch list to state and local authorities, as well as airline employees, and they do so in a manner that other members of the traveling public can hear.
111. The operation of the federal terror watch list enlists air carriers to assist the federal government in tracking the passenger on the federal terror watch list.
24

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 25 of 94 PageID# 444
112. Defendants apply the federal terror watch list against Muslim Americans in a manner that is different from how it uses its list against people of other faith backgrounds.
113. Defendants use impermissible and inaccurate religious profiles in compiling the federal terror watch list.
114. Defendants who contributed to the placement of Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens on the federal terror watch list knew that their actions violated clearly established federal law.
115. 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 government must at least provide the deprived with some form of notice that a deprivation occurred.
The Federal Government’s Terrorist Watch List Is No More Effective Than a List of Randomly Selected Individuals 116. Defendants’ ability to watch list persons, including Plaintiffs, who pose a threat of terrorism can be measured and described using a quantitative analysis based on factual allegations made in this Complaint as well as publicly available information describing the current operation of the federal terror watch list. 117. Upon information and belief, the federal government has placed approximately one million persons on the federal terror watch list over the last ten years. 118. Moreover, based on the University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database, a project funded in part by the Department of Homeland Security, there have been less than 250 terrorist acts inside the United States over the last decade. These terrorist acts were perpetrated by less than 250 persons.
25

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 26 of 94 PageID# 445
119. Only one of these perpetrators was designated on the federal terror watch list by the federal government prior to their criminal conduct. This single person designated on the federal terror watch list, however, was removed from the federal terror watch list prior to perpetrating the terrorist attack.
120. Upon information and belief, in order to designate a person on the federal terror watch list, the federal government must first have information about that person. Because the federal government does not possess information on every person in the world, existing law enforcement and intelligence practices produce a subset of persons who the federal government can then screen against the federal terror watch list’s inclusion standards.
121. The precise size of this subset is unknown, however a survey of law enforcement and intelligence practices indicates that the size of this subset is greater than 50 million people.
122. Upon information and belief, the practices that produce this subset exclude some persons who do pose a threat of terrorism and include some persons who do not pose a threat of terrorism.
123. Upon further information and belief, the federal government does not screen the entire subset of people known to it. Moreover, Defendants do not make individual determinations as to whether each person about whom they know should be placed on the federal terror watch list.
124. In order to designate a person on the federal terror watch list, a federal government official must make a nomination and a TSC official must accept the nomination.
26

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 27 of 94 PageID# 446
125. Upon information and belief, TSC officials accept nominations at a rate above 95 percent.
126. Based on the facts alleged in this Complaint and the publicly known processes of the federal terror watch list, a quantitative analysis can be constructed to measure and describe the performance of the federal terror watch list.
127. A quantitative analysis demonstrates that, in order to accomplish the federal terror watch list’s stated objectives, Defendants must have at least some greater‐than‐ random ability to identify future terrorists. This is due to the nature of the processes Defendants utilize to place persons on the federal terror watch list and the size of the population Defendants can—if they so choose—screen against the federal terror watch list’s inclusion standards.
128. A quantitative analysis also demonstrates that Defendants’ watch listing system would perform similarly if inclusion on the watch list was done via random selection instead of the existing inclusion standards Defendants utilize.
129. A quantitative analysis therefore indicates that Defendants have no ability to watch list persons whose placement on the watch list would further Defendants’ stated objectives.
Inadequacy of the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program Process 130. The government entities and individuals involved in the creation, maintenance, support, modification and enforcement of the federal terror watch list, including Defendants, have not provided travelers, including Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens, with a fair and effective mechanism through which they can challenge the TSC’s decision to place them on the terrorist watch list.
27

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 28 of 94 PageID# 447
131. An individual, including Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens, who has been prevented or hindered from travel by being placed on the federal terror watch list has no clear avenue for redress, because no single government entity is responsible for removing an individual from the list. The TSC, which is administered by the FBI, does not accept redress inquiries from the public, nor does it directly provide final disposition letters to individuals on the selectee list, including Plaintiffs on the selectee list and similarly situated American citizens, who have submitted redress inquiries. The NCTC which manages the TIDE list does not accept redress inquiries from the general public.
132. Individuals who seek redress after having been included in the terrorist watch list must submit an inquiry through the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (“DHS TRIP”). DHS TRIP provides individuals with a “Redress Control Number.”
133. DHS TRIP is the only redress “process” available to individuals included on the terrorist watch list.
134. DHS TRIP submits traveler complaints to the TSC, which determines whether any action should be taken. The TSC has not provided any publicly available information about how it makes that decision. The TSC is the final arbiter of whether an individual’s name is retained on or removed from the watch list, including those of Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens.
135. The TSC makes a determination regarding a particular individual’s status on the watch list, including Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens, and DHS in turn responds to the individual with a standard form letter that neither confirms nor denies the existence of any terrorist watch list records relating to the individual. The letters do not set
28

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 29 of 94 PageID# 448
forth any basis for inclusion in a terrorist watch list, do not state whether the government has resolved the complaint at issue.
136. The government does not provide an American citizen with any opportunity to confront, or to rebut, the grounds for his or her possible inclusion on the watch list. As such, DHS TRIP offers no meaningful review of the watch list designation and in effect shields the TSC’s actions with respect to the individual nominations or classes of nominations from meaningful review by any independent authority.
137. Moreover, the government’s own internal audits of the system point to serious flaws. For example, a March 2008 DOJ Office of the Inspector General report entitled Audit of the U.S. Department of Justice Terrorism Watchlist Nomination Processes found significant problems with the nomination and removal process.
138. Thus, the only “process” available to such individuals is to submit their names and other identifying information to a government entity that has no authority to provide redress and to hope that an unspecified government agency corrects an error or changes its mind.
139. All Plaintiffs are United States Citizens. 140. None have been charged, arrested or convicted of a terrorism‐related offense. 141. As alleged below, each of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated American citizens are designated on the watch list.
Plaintiff Anas Elhady 142. Mr. Anas Elhady is routinely referred to secondary inspection, handcuffed and detained by CBP at land border crossings when he attempts to re‐enter the United States from Canada.
29

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 30 of 94 PageID# 449
143. CBP officers routinely subject him to a prolonged detention and questioning for approximately four to twelve hours each time.
144. Moreover, he is routinely asked questions about his religious beliefs and practices, what sect of Islam he belongs to, what mosque he prays in, among other things.
145. Moreover, every time Mr. Elhady travels by air, his boarding pass is stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.”
146. Mr. Elhady filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 147. On May 11, 2015, Mr. Elhady received a letter as described in paragraph 135 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 148. Shortly afterwards, Mr. Elhady was again referred to secondary inspection, handcuffed and detained by CBP at the border stop at the Ambassador Bridge Port of Entry in Detroit, Michigan, for approximately six hours when he attempted to re‐enter the United States after a brief vacation in Canada. 149. After the CBP officers confiscated Mr. Elhady’s jacket and shoes, they detained him in a small, freezing cold holding cell with bright lights. 150. After several hours, Mr. Elhady knocked on the door repeatedly and begged for someone to help him. His pleas for help were ignored. 151. Afterwards, his body began shaking uncontrollably and he fell unconscious. 152. CBP officers finally opened the door and woke him up. 153. Mr. Elhady repeatedly begged for an ambulance to take him to the hospital, but his pleas were ignored.
30

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 31 of 94 PageID# 450
154. Finally, Mr. Elhady was taken to an ambulance, only to be handcuffed to the bed inside the ambulance.
155. Mr. Elhady was taken to a local hospital, where he was handcuffed to a chair in the waiting room of the hospital.
156. After being attended to by nurses and physicians, and prescribed the medication that he needed, Mr. Elhady was again handcuffed to a chair inside a vehicle and transported back to the Ambassador Bridge.
157. On December 2, 2015, FBI Special Agent Josh Allen contacted Mr. Elhady and informed him that his phone was being tapped and that all his calls were being listened to by the FBI.
158. Mr. Elhady’s boarding pass continues to be stamped with the “SSSS” designation when travels by air, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.”
159. Additionally, every time Mr. Elhady travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning.
160. At no time was Mr. Elhady given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal terror watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
161. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Elhady given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
162. Upon information and belief, Mr. Elhady remains on the federal terror watch list.
31

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 32 of 94 PageID# 451
163. Upon information and belief, Mr. Elhady’s nomination to and designation on the federal terror watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt‐by‐association, or First Amendment protected activities).
164. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Elhady is included on the federal terror watch list, Defendants disseminated and are continuing to disseminate his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Baby Doe 2 165. Baby Doe 2 is a 1‐year‐old toddler. 166. He was eleven‐months‐old when his boarding pass was first stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he had been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 167. While passing through airport security, he was subjected to extensive searches and pat downs. 168. Baby Doe 2 and his father, whose boarding pass was also stamped with the “SSSS” designation, were detained for hours and questioned regarding the existence of any affiliations with terror groups. 169. At no time was Baby Doe 2, or his parents, given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal terror watch list, and at no time was he or his parents offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
32

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 33 of 94 PageID# 452
170. Moreover, at no time was Baby Doe 2, or his parents, given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
171. Upon information and belief, Baby Doe 2’s nomination to and designation on the federal terror watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt‐by‐association, familial status—based upon his father’s or other family member’s designation—or First Amendment protected activities).
172. Upon information and belief, because Baby Doe 2 is included on the federal terror watch list, Defendants disseminated and are continuing to disseminate his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Yaseen Kadura 173. On September 22, 2012, Mr. Yaseen Kadura was surrounded by eight armed CBP officers, handcuffed and detained in a holding cell for nearly eight hours at the Peace Bridge Port of Entry in Port Huron, Michigan, when he attempted to re‐enter the United States after a brief trip to Canada. 174. CBP officers confiscated his phone and informed Mr. Kadura that his phone was being forwarded to ICE and would be returned to him in 24 to 48 hours. 175. Upon information and belief, the CBP officers downloaded the data from his phone. 176. On October 22, 2012, Mr. Kadura appeared at Chicago O’Hare International Airport, in order to travel to Libya.
33

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 34 of 94 PageID# 453
177. Mr. Kadura had previously purchased a plane ticket for a Turkish Airlines flight to Istanbul, and he was to then fly to Libya from Istanbul on Turkish Airlines. Mr. Kadura presented himself at the Turkish Airlines ticket counter hours before his flight.
178. Turkish Airlines personnel were unable to check Mr. Kadura in for his flight and did not issue him a boarding pass.
179. The Turkish Airlines personnel informed Mr. Kadura that he was on the No‐ Fly List and that he could not board his flight.
180. Before Mr. Kadura was denied the ability to board his flight on October 22, 2012, he did not receive any notice, from a government agency or anyone else, that he would be unable to board his flight or that his name was placed on the No Fly List. Mr. Kadura had been able previously to board flights in the United States without difficulty.
181. On or about November 14, 2012, Special Agent Arkin Fout, Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”), Immigration and Customs Enforcement, directly contacted Mr. Kadura and harassed and intimidated him in an attempt to coerce him into arranging an “informal meeting” at an undisclosed location without the presence of his attorney.
182. Special Agent Fout proceeded to pressure Mr. Kadura into becoming an informant in Libya.
183. Special Agent Fout indicated that if Mr. Kadura wanted to remove his name from the No‐Fly List, it would be nearly impossible for him to do so unless he agreed to work as an informant in Libya.
184. Upon information and belief, Mr. Kadura’s name was added to the No‐Fly List in order to leverage his status on the federal terror watch list to put pressure on Mr. Kadura to act as an informant in Libya.
34

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 35 of 94 PageID# 454
185. On multiple occasions, some of the same of Mr. Kadura’s family members were traveling with him; and upon witnessing the above incidents, upon information and belief, they learned of his status on the federal terror watch list.
186. On November 30, 2012, Mr. Kadura filed a complaint through DHS TRIP. 187. On May 8, 2013, Mr. Kadura received a letter as described in paragraph 135 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 188. Mr. Kadura filed a timely DHS TRIP appeal on June 5, 2013. 189. Because Mr. Kadura did not received a response to his DHS TRIP appeal, Mr. Kadura filed a federal lawsuit, along with four other Muslim Americans, on August 14, 2014 seeking his removal from the federal terror watch list or any other database that burdens or prevents him from flying or entering the United States across the border. (United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 14‐cv‐13128 (2014)). 190. On September 4, 2015, Mr. Kadura’s attorney received a response to the DHS TRIP appeal that stated “As you requested in connection with Mr. Kadura’s redress inquiry challenging the redress process, DHS TRIP reevaluated Mr. Kadura’s redress inquiry and is now providing a new determination in accordance with the newly enhanced procedures. At this time the U.S. Government knows of no reason Mr. Kadura should be unable to fly.” 191. On January 15, 2016, Mr. Kadura attempted to check in online for his commercial flight to New York, however he was unable to check in. 192. Mr. Kadura appeared later that day at Chicago O’Hare International Airport in order to board his commercial flight to New York. 193. Mr. Kadura was unable to check in at the kiosk stationed at the airport. He approached an airline representative to be checked in manually, and after speaking on the
35

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 36 of 94 PageID# 455
phone with a Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) representative for nearly an hour, his boarding pass was stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.”
194. He was then taken into a special security room by a number of TSA agents for a private security check before he was allowed to board his flight.
195. Upon information and belief, Defendant TSC disseminated the stigmatizing label of “known or suspected terrorist” attached to Mr. Kadura to Western Union or other private entities or individuals, and as a result, he is unable to conduct wire transfers at any Western Union branch.
196. At no time was Mr. Kadura given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal terror watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
197. Moreover, at no time prior to April, 2015 was Mr. Kadura given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
198. Upon information and belief, Mr. Kadura remains on the federal terror watch list.
199. Upon information and belief, Mr. Kadura’s nomination to and designation on the federal terror watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt‐by‐association, or First Amendment protected activities).
200. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Kadura is included on the federal terror watch list, Defendants disseminated and are continuing to disseminate his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments,
36

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 37 of 94 PageID# 456
private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Osama Hussein Ahmed 201. On or about February or March, 2011, Mr. Osama Ahmed appeared at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport, upon returning home on a commercial flight from Yemen. 202. Mr. Ahmed was escorted from the gate to an interrogation room and interrogated by FBI agents for approximately six to seven hours. 203. The FBI agents confiscated his USB drive that he had with him, and upon information and belief, downloaded the information from his USB drive. 204. Several days later, FBI agents, including Special Agent Joel Kelso, appeared at Mr. Ahmed’s home. 205. The FBI agents took him to a nearby bd’s Mongolian Grill, and attempted to recruit Mr. Ahmed into becoming an informant in Yemen. 206. The FBI agents tried to entice Mr. Ahmed, who was only 18 years old at the time, into becoming an informant by offering to teach him how to sky dive, among other things. 207. Special Agent Kelso informed Mr. Ahmed that his name was on the No‐Fly List, and that if he cooperated, his name would be removed from the list. 208. On April 29, 2011, Mr. Ahmed filed a complaint through DHS TRIP. 209. On May 2, 2011, Mr. Ahmed’s attorney spoke with Special Agent Kelso who informed her at that time that there was no basis to include Mr. Ahmed on the No‐Fly List, and that he would make arrangements to remove his name from the federal terror watch list.
37

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 38 of 94 PageID# 457
210. On May 10, 2011, Special Agent Kelso informed his attorney that Mr. Ahmed’s name was removed from the No‐Fly List.
211. As a result of being added to the No‐Fly List, Mr. Ahmed was unable to apply for employment at the airport where his brother was employed at the time until his name was removed from the No‐Fly List.
212. Upon information and belief, Mr. Ahmed’s name was added to the No‐Fly List in order to leverage his status on the federal terror watch list to put pressure on Mr. Ahmed to act as an informant in Yemen.
213. On or about 2015, Mr. Ahmed’s boarding passes are now stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been once again designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.”
214. At no time was Mr. Ahmed given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal terror watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
215. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Ahmed given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
216. Upon information and belief, Mr. Ahmed remains on the federal terror watch list.
217. Upon information and belief, Mr. Ahmed’s nomination to and designation on the federal terror watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt‐by‐association, or First Amendment protected activities).
38

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 39 of 94 PageID# 458
218. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Ahmed is included on the federal terror watch list, Defendants disseminated and are continuing to disseminate his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi 219. Every time Mr. Ahmad Al Halabi travels by air, since 2004, his boarding pass is stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 220. Moreover, Mr. Al Halabi is frequently unable to board his flights until he is “cleared” by DHS to board the flight, a process that oftentimes takes hours. 221. Moreover, Mr. Al Halabi has missed his flights and incurred additional expenses on multiple occasions after having been subjected to prolonged searches and interrogations. 222. 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 approximately two to three hours and in the waiting area for another three to four hours at the Ambassador Bridge port of entry in Detroit, Michigan, when he attempted to re‐enter the United States after a brief vacation in Canada. 223. CBP officers confiscated his phone, and upon information and belief, the CBP officers downloaded the data from his phone.
39

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 40 of 94 PageID# 459
224. On multiple occasions, some of the same of Mr. Halabi’s family members were traveling with him, and upon witnessing the above incidents, upon information and belief, they learned of his status on the federal terror watch list.
225. Mr. Al Halabi no longer travels by air nor does he travel to Canada by land unless absolutely necessary for business purposes in order to avoid being subjected to the above treatment.
226. Mr. Al Halabi filed multiple redress requests through DHS TRIP. 227. Mr. Al Halabi received multiple letters as described in paragraph 135 above and was assigned multiple Redress Control Numbers. 228. At no time was Mr. Al Halabi given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal terror watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 229. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Al Halabi given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights. 230. Mr. Al Halabi’s boarding passes continue to be stamped with the “SSSS” designation every time he travels by air. 231. Additionally, every time Mr. Al Halabi travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning. 232. Upon information and belief, Mr. Al Halabi remains on the federal terror watch list. 233. Upon information and belief, Mr. Al Halabi’s nomination to and designation on the federal terror watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race,
40

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 41 of 94 PageID# 460
ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt‐by‐association, or First Amendment protected activities).
234. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Al Halabi is included on the federal terror watch list, Defendants disseminated and are continuing to disseminate his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Michael Edmund Coleman 235. On or about May 2, 2015, Mr. Michael Edmund Coleman appeared at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport, in order to board a commercial flight for his trip to Doha International Airport. 236. Mr. Coleman was unable to check in online or at a kiosk stationed at the airport. 237. He approached an airline representative to be checked in manually, and after speaking on the phone with a DHS representative to obtain clearance before he could fly, his boarding pass was stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 238. During Mr. Coleman’s flight connection at the Philadelphia International Airport, Mr. Coleman was unable to board his next flight until he was once again “cleared” by DHS to board the flight. 239. Mr. Coleman filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 240. As of the date of this filing, Mr. Coleman has not received a response from DHS, nor has he been assigned a Redress Control Number.
41

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 42 of 94 PageID# 461
241. Mr. Coleman’s boarding passes continue to be stamped with the “SSSS” designation every time he travels by air.
242. Additionally, every time Mr. Coleman travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches, questioning and chemical testing.
243. Mr. Coleman is frequently interrogated about his religious activities. 244. At no time was Mr. Coleman given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal terror watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 245. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Coleman given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights. 246. Upon information and belief, Mr. Coleman remains on the federal terror watch list. 247. Mr. Coleman limits travels by air and by land to Canada when necessary for business purposes in order to avoid being subjected to the above treatment. 248. Upon information and belief, Mr. Coleman’s nomination to and designation on the federal terror watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt‐by‐association, or First Amendment protected activities). 249. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Coleman is included on the federal terror watch list, Defendants disseminated and are continuing to disseminate his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, among other official and private entities and individuals.
42

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 43 of 94 PageID# 462
Plaintiff Dr. Wael Hakmeh 250. On or about April, 2014, Dr. Wael Hakmeh appeared at Chicago O’Hare International Airport upon returning on a flight from a business trip in Turkey. 251. He was referred to secondary screening and subjected to a prolonged interrogation. 252. Additionally, to the best of his recollection, in June, 2014, his boarding pass was stamped with the “SSSS” designation for the first time, indicating that he was designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 253. On or about October, 2014, Dr. Hakmeh appeared to have been removed from the watch list, as his boarding pass for his flight was not stamped with the “SSSS” designation. 254. However, in January, 2016, Dr. Hakmeh’s boarding pass was again stamped with the “SSSS” designation. 255. On or about June, 2016, Dr. Wael Hakmeh appeared at San Diego International Airport to return home after taking a medical course in San Diego. 256. Before passing through the TSA security checkpoint, Dr. Hakmeh expressed medical and privacy concerns regarding the full‐body millimeter wave scanner and requested to be screened by a metal detector instead. 257. TSA agents informed Dr. Hakmeh that he was required to be screened by both the full‐body millimeter scanner and metal detector in accordance with security protocol. As a result, he complied. 258. Nonetheless, despite having already been screened by both the full‐body millimeter scanner and metal detector, a San Diego police officer approached Dr. Hakmeh after he passed through security, and in the midst of an inspection of each of the items he
43

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 44 of 94 PageID# 463
was carrying, and threatened to charge Dr. Hakmeh with a misdemeanor and arrest him for refusing to pass through the full‐body millimeter scanner.
259. On multiple occasions, Dr. Hakmeh’s family members were traveling with him, and upon witnessing the above incidents, upon information and belief, they learned of his status on the federal terror watch list.
260. At no time was Dr. Hakmeh given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal terror watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
261. Moreover, at no time was Dr. Hakmeh given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
262. Upon information and belief, Dr. Hakmeh remains on the federal terror watch list.
263. Dr. Hakmeh no longer connects through Chicago O’Hare International Airport to Detroit Metropolitan Airport when returning home to Michigan from overseas travel. Rather, Dr. Hakmeh drives from Chicago O’Hare International Airport for approximately five hours to his home in Wayne County, Michigan each time in order to avoid being subjected to the above treatment at multiple airports and risk arriving late to his place of employment.
264. Upon information and belief, Dr. Hakmeh’s nomination to and designation on the federal terror watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt‐by‐association, or First Amendment protected activities).
265. Upon information and belief, because Dr. Hakmeh is included on the federal terror watch list, Defendants disseminated and are continuing to disseminate his designation
44

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 45 of 94 PageID# 464
as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Hassan Shibly 266. Mr. Hassan Shibly is the Chief Executive Director of the Council on American‐ Islamic Relations, Florida (CAIR‐FL), a chapter of the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and civil liberties advocacy organization, and a prominent civil rights activist. 267. Mr. Shibly often serves as a consultant on Islam for, among other private entities, law enforcement and other government agencies. 268. Upon information and belief, since at least 2010 until 2015, oftentimes when Mr. Shibly traveled by air, his boarding pass was stamped with the “SSSS” designation. 269. However, FBI documents, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act Request (“FOIA”) request in 2011, revealed the FBI made a determination that Mr. Shibly does not have any nexus to terrorism whatsoever. 270. Nonetheless, Mr. Shibly routinely is unable to check in online or at a kiosk stationed at the airport, or print his boarding pass. 271. As a matter of practice, airline representatives routinely contact DHS representatives in order to obtain clearance before allowing Mr. Shibly to board his flights. 272. When traveling through land border crossings to re‐enter the United States from Canada and air ports of entry, Mr. Shibly is also routinely referred to secondary inspection and detained by CBP. 273. On November 25, 2009, Mr. Shibly was handcuffed, detained, fingerprinted and photographed at the Peace Bridge Port of Entry in Port Huron, Michigan.
45

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 46 of 94 PageID# 465
274. That day, a CBP officer confirmed that Mr. Shibly was not randomly selected. Rather, the officer advised Mr. Shibly that he was on a “list” and that he would receive the same treatment each time he crossed the border into the United States.
275. The following day, Mr. Shibly again attempted to cross into the United States, however, this time at the Lewiston‐Queens Bridge in Lewiston, New York.
276. However, when the CBP officer swiped Mr. Shibly’s passport, he radioed “I have a 1022 at booth number one.”
277. Mr. Shibly was immediately surrounded by armed CBP officers who escorted him for a secondary inspection and prolonged questioning.
278. Mr. Shibly’s grandmother, who was with him at the time, fainted at the sight of what had transpired, and was carried to a hospital by an ambulance.
279. CBP officers searched through all his electronics on his possession and in his car, including, upon information and belief, his cell phone.
280. On at least one occasion, on August 6, 2013, at the Ambassador Bridge port of entry in Detroit, Michigan, Mr. Shibly was questioned by CBP regarding the mosque he attends.
281. On another occasion, on August 18, 2010, CBP officers at the John F. Kennedy International Airport asked Mr. Shibly about the holy sites he visited, whether he is part of “any Islamic tribes,” whether he has been to a “madrassah [Islamic school] or studied Islam full‐time,” whether he attends a particular mosque, the Qur’an, and how many “gods” and “prophets” he believes in. After this line of questioning, a CBP officer told Mr. Shibly that they were asking these questions “to protect against bombs and terrorism.”
46

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 47 of 94 PageID# 466
282. Approximately two years prior, Mr. Shibly was questioned by a different CBP officer, also at the John F. Kennedy International Airport, about whether he recruits people to join his faith.
283. Whenever Mr. Shibly was detained and subjected to prolonged questioning at land border crossings, he observed that at least 50% to 75% of the other individuals similarly detained were visibly Muslim.
284. During the time that Mr. Shibly was receiving the “SSSS” designation on his boarding pass, he became employed by Regional Elite, a wholly owned subsidiary of Delta Airlines, specifically during 2011.
285. In order to obtain his employment with Regional Elite, which required him to obtain access to sterile areas of the airport, Mr. Shibly was required to go extensive background checks, including an FBI background check.
286. During the period of his employment with Regional Elite, Mr. Shibly had unrestricted access to the sterile area of the airport in addition to planes to clean them.
287. Additionally, during the period of his employment with Regional Elite, Mr. Shibly was allowed to gain unrestricted access to planes to clean them in connection with his employment without having to undergo any additional security measures, detentions, or interrogations.
288. On the other hand, whenever Mr. Shibly traveled for personal reasons during the same time period, Mr. Shibly’s boarding passes continued to be marked with “SSSS,” and he continued to have to obtain clearance from a DHS representative to board his flights.
289. Moreover, during the time that Mr. Shibly’s boarding passes were marked with “SSSS” or that Mr. Shibly was required to obtain clearance from a DHS representative to
47

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 48 of 94 PageID# 467
board his flights, he met with President Barack Obama and several high‐ranking government officials (including Ms. Valerie Jarett, Senior Advisor to the President; Mr. Benjamin Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications for the President; Ms. Melissa Rogers, Special Assistant to the President and Executive Director of the White House Office of Faith‐based and Neighborhood Partnerships; Ms. Cecilia Muñoz, Former Director of Intergovernmental Affairs; Mr. Richard Chávez, Senior Executive of the Department of Homeland Security; Mr. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Mr. Kareem Shora, DHS Senior Policy Advisor; and Mr. David Gersten, DHS Office for Community Partnerships), numerous United States Congress members, and state and local representatives regarding Islam and civil rights issues facing Muslims.
290. In fact, on or about March, 2016, Mr. Shibly appeared at the Tampa International Airport in order to board his flight to Washington, D.C., where he was scheduled to meet with senior advisors to the President.
291. However, Mr. Shibly was delayed as a result of not being able to obtain DHS clearance to board his flight in time, and missed his flight as a result.
292. Neither in connection with his meeting with President Barack Obama nor in connection with his meetings with high level government officials was Mr. Shibly ever subjected to additional security measures, whether searches, questioning or prolonged detentions.
293. On multiple occasions, some of the same of Mr. Shibly’s friends and/or family members were traveling with him; and upon witnessing the above incidents, upon information and belief, they learned of his status on the federal terror watch list.
294. Mr. Shibly filed a redress request through DHS TRIP.
48

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 49 of 94 PageID# 468
295. On January 26, 2011, Mr. Shibly received a letter as described in paragraph 135 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number.
296. At no time was Mr. Shibly given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal terror watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
297. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Shibly given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
298. Upon information and belief, Mr. Shibly remains on the federal terror watch list.
299. Upon information and belief, Mr. Shibly’s nomination to and designation on the watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt‐by‐association, or First Amendment protected activities).
300. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Shibly is included on the federal terror watch list, Defendants disseminated and are continuing to disseminate his designation to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Ausama Elhuzayel 301. On or about April, 2016, Mr. Ausama Elhuzayel appeared at the Los Angeles International Airport in order to board his flight to Dominica. 302. Mr. Elhuzayel presented himself to check in for his flight when an agent in common clothes (the agency to which he belongs is unknown, however the agent
49

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 50 of 94 PageID# 469
represented himself as a TSA agent) approached him and informed him that he had “bad news” for him and that he “was not going anywhere.”
303. A second armed agent (the agency to which the second agent belongs is also unknown) provided backup as Mr. Elhuzayel was escorted out of the airport to a shuttle to ensure that he left the airport.
304. One of the agents advised Mr. Elhuzayel to file a redress request through DHS TRIP.
305. Mr. Elhuzayel immediately filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 306. As of the date of this filing, Mr. Elhuzayel has not received a response from DHS, nor has he been assigned a Redress Control Number. 307. At no time was Mr. Elhuzayel given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal terror watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 308. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Elhuzayel given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights. 309. Upon information and belief, Mr. Elhuzayel remains on the federal terror watch list. 310. Upon information and belief, Mr. Elhuzayel’s nomination to and designation on the federal terror watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt‐by‐association—based upon his association with Plaintiff Donald Thomas or other individuals—or First Amendment protected activities).
50

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 51 of 94 PageID# 470
311. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Elhuzayel is included on the federal terror watch list, Defendants disseminated and are continuing to disseminate his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Donald Thomas 312. On April 26, 2016, two FBI agents, including FBI Agent Pat, met with Mr. Thomas at a Starbucks. 313. They questioned him about his religious beliefs – specifically, FBI Agent Pat asked Mr. Thomas “[w]hen does Islam promote violence?” and “[w]hat does jihad mean?” 314. The following day, on April 27, 2016, Mr. Donald Thomas appeared at the Sacramento International Airport in order to board his flight to Malaysia. 315. Prior to his flight, Mr. Thomas presented himself at the Delta Airlines ticket counter before his flight. 316. Delta Airlines personnel were unable to check Mr. Thomas in for his flight. 317. The personnel spoke on the phone with a DHS representative to obtain clearance to allow Mr. Thomas to board his flight. 318. Suddenly, at least two TSA Agents, one of which was armed and had his hand on his gun ready to shoot, and one Canine Enforcement Officer who was handling a canine, surrounded Mr. Thomas. 319. The Delta Airlines representative informed Mr. Thomas that he was on the No Fly List and would not be permitted to board his flight.
51

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 52 of 94 PageID# 471
320. Mr. Thomas immediately left the airport, and as he was loading his suitcases, two FBI agents approached him, one of which was Agent Pat who had questioned him at Starbucks the day before.
321. Agent Pat advised Mr. Thomas to contact the Council on American‐Islamic Relations (CAIR), as the organization may be able to help him in connection with his status on the No Fly List.
322. Prior to being added to the No Fly List, on at least two flights, Mr. Thomas’ boarding passes were stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he had been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.”
323. Moreover, on or about February 1, 2016, Mr. Thomas was surrounded by at least four to five armed CBP officers and detained for eight to ten hours at the border stop at the Peace Bridge Port of Entry in Port Huron, New York, when he attempted to re‐enter the United States after a brief trip to Canada.
324. CBP officers confiscated his phone, asked him for his password to access the phone, and upon information and belief, the CBP officers downloaded the data from his phone.
325. Mr. Thomas filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 326. As of this date, Mr. Thomas has not received a final response from DHS. 327. At no time was Mr. Thomas given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal terror watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 328. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Thomas given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
52

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 53 of 94 PageID# 472
329. Upon information and belief, Mr. Thomas’ nomination to and designation on the federal terror watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt‐by‐association—based upon his association with Plaintiff Ausama Elhuzayel or other individuals—or First Amendment protected activities).
330. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Thomas is included on the federal terror watch list, Defendants disseminated and are continuing to disseminate his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Murat Frljuckic 331. On or about October, 2012, Mr. Murat Frljuckic was referred to secondary inspection, handcuffed and detained by CBP at the border stop at the Blue Water Bridge Port of Entry in Port Huron, Michigan, when he attempted to re‐enter the United States after a brief vacation in Canada. 332. CBP officers subjected him to a prolonged detention and questioning for approximately three to four hours. 333. Similarly, on or about August, 2014, Mr. Frljuckic was referred to secondary inspection, handcuffed and detained by CBP at the border stop at the Blue Water Bridge Port of Entry in Port Huron, Michigan, when he attempted to re‐enter the United States after a brief vacation in Montenegro.
53

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 54 of 94 PageID# 473
334. Moreover, every time Mr. Frljuckic travels by air, since approximately March or April, 2012, his boarding pass is stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.”
335. On multiple occasions, Mr. Frljuckic’s friends and/or family were traveling with him and were required to provide their contact information to U.S Customs Officers; and upon witnessing the above incidents, upon information and belief, they learned of his status on the federal terror watch list.
336. Mr. Frljuckic filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 337. As of the date of this filing, Mr. Frljuckic has not received a response from DHS, nor has he been assigned a Redress Control Number. 338. Mr. Frljuckic’s boarding passes continue to be stamped with the “SSSS” designation every time he travels by air. 339. Additionally, every time Mr. Frljuckic travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning. 340. At no time was Mr. Frljuckic given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal terror watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 341. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Frljuckic given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights. 342. Upon information and belief, Mr. Frljuckic remains on the federal terror watch list. 343. Mr. Frljuckic no longer travels by air nor does he travel to Canada by land in order to avoid being subjected to the above treatment.
54

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 55 of 94 PageID# 474
344. Upon information and belief, Mr. Frljuckic’s nomination to and designation on the federal terror watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt‐by‐association, or First Amendment protected activities).
345. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Frljuckic is included on the federal terror watch list, Defendants disseminated and are continuing to disseminate his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Ibrahim Awad 346. On June 30, 2016, Mr. Ibrahim Awad appeared at a Chevrolet car dealership located in Sterling Heights, Michigan to test drive and purchase a pickup truck. 347. However, when he requested to test drive the vehicle, a Chevrolet sales representative informed Mr. Awad that, although he was “not supposed to tell” Mr. Awad, upon inputting his information in the company’s system, Mr. Awad’s name showed up as being designated on the federal terror watch list. 348. The Chevrolet salesperson went on to advise Mr. Awad that because of a “new law,” Mr. Awad was not permitted to test drive or purchase any vehicles until the dealership obtain clearance from the FBI allowing him to do so. 349. The Chevrolet salesperson told Mr. Awad to wait until he was able to obtain clearance from the FBI allowing Mr. Awad to test drive and purchase the pickup truck that Mr. Awad wanted to purchase.
55

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 56 of 94 PageID# 475
350. Approximately thirty minutes later, the Chevrolet salesperson informed Mr. Awad that the FBI sent him an email providing Mr. Awad with clearance to test drive and purchase a vehicle.
351. Upon information and belief, Defendant TSC disseminated the stigmatizing label of “known or suspected terrorist” attached to Mr. Awad to the Chevrolet car dealership and other private entities or individuals, and as a result, he was unable to test drive or purchase a vehicle until the Chevrolet car dealership obtained FBI clearance allowing him to do so.
352. Upon information and belief, since 2013, Mr. Awad has been unable to check in online or at airport kiosks in order to obtain a boarding pass.
353. Moreover, since 2013, every time Mr. Awad presents himself at a ticket counter prior to his flight, airlines personnel are unable to check Mr. Awad in for his flight.
354. Rather, each time, the personnel contact a DHS representative to obtain clearance to allow Mr. Awad to board his flights.
355. Moreover, since 2013, Mr. Awad is also frequently referred to secondary inspections and subjected to prolonged detention and questioning at both the airport and at land border crossings.
356. On July 24, 2014, upon returning from a flight to Turkey, Mr. Awad was pulled aside at the John F. Kennedy International Airport by a man wearing a suit and tie, who upon information and belief was an FBI agent, and taken to an interrogation room, where he was detained and subjected to prolonged interrogation by New York Police Department officers.
357. The NYPD officers, upon information and belief, were part of a joint terrorism taskforce.
56

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 57 of 94 PageID# 476
358. On or about May, 2015, Mr. Awad was questioned by FBI Agents Josh Hauxhurst and Hank Impola outside his home about his political opinions regarding the ongoing conflict in Syria, his position on the Assad regime, the Free Syria Army and ISIS, and his recent trip to Turkey.
359. The FBI Agents proceeded to pressure Mr. Awad into becoming an informant. 360. Upon information and belief, Mr. Awad’s name was added to the federal terror watch list in order to leverage his status and put pressure on Mr. Awad to act as an informant. 361. At no time was Mr. Awad given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal terror watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 362. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Awad given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights. 363. Upon information and belief, Mr. Awad remains on the federal terror watch list. 364. Upon information and belief, Mr. Awad’s nomination to and designation on the federal terror watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt‐by‐association, or First Amendment protected activities). 365. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Awad is included on the federal terror watch list, Defendants disseminated and are continuing to disseminate his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, among other official and private entities and individuals.
57

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 58 of 94 PageID# 477
Plaintiff Mark Amri 366. On January 21, 2016, Mr. Mark Amri appeared at the Ontario International Airport in Ontario, California in order to board his flight to Las Vegas, Nevada. 367. Prior to his flight, Mr. Amri presented himself at the Southwest Airlines ticket counter before his flight. 368. Southwest Airlines personnel were unable to check Mr. Amri in for his flight. 369. The personnel spoke on the phone with a DHS representative to obtain clearance to allow Mr. Amri to board his flight. 370. Mr. Amri overhead the personnel describe him on the phone, stating that “he looks ok.” 371. The Southwest Airlines representative informed Mr. Amri that he was on the No Fly List and would not be permitted to board his flight. 372. Mr. Amri filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 373. On July 19, 2016, Mr. Amri received a letter as described in paragraph 135 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 374. On August 4, 2016, Mr. Amri again appeared at the Ontario International Airport in Ontario, California in order to board his flight to San Francisco, California. 375. He approached an airline representative to be checked in manually, and after the airline personnel spoke on the phone multiple times with DHS representatives to obtain clearance before he could fly, his boarding pass was stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he was still designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.”
58

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 59 of 94 PageID# 478
376. On September 1, 2016, Mr. Amri received a second letter from DHS stating that “the U.S. Government knows of no reason, related to your inquiry, that you should be unable to fly.”
377. At no time was Mr. Amri given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal terror watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
378. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Amri given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
379. Upon information and belief, Mr. Amri’s nomination to and designation on the federal terror watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt‐by‐association, or First Amendment protected activities).
380. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Amri is included on the federal terror watch list, Defendants disseminated and are continuing to disseminate his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Adnan Khalil Shaout 381. Every time Mr. Adnan Shaout travels by air, since 2004, his boarding pass is stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 382. Mr. Shaout is frequently interrogated about his religious beliefs and affiliation with religious groups during secondary inspections.
59

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 60 of 94 PageID# 479
383. Moreover, Mr. Shaout is frequently unable to board his flights until he is “cleared” by DHS to board the flight, a process that oftentimes takes hours.
384. Moreover, TSA agents often confiscate his laptop, and upon information and belief, download information from his laptop.
385. On or about, June 23, 2011, while Mr. Shaout was sitting in the plane waiting for take‐off, despite having been thoroughly screened by TSA, TSA agents removed Mr. Shaout from the plane and conducted another extensive pat down and search of his personal belongings.
386. The entire flight was delayed until the TSA agents completed this search. 387. Mr. Shaout no longer travels by air in the United States in order to avoid being subjected to the above treatment. 388. On multiple occasions, some of the same of Mr. Shaout’s family and/or friends were traveling with him; and upon witnessing the above incidents, upon information and belief, they learned of his status on the federal terror watch list. 389. Mr. Shaout filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 390. On November 5, 2015, Mr. Shaout received a letter as described in paragraph 135 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 391. Mr. Shaout’s boarding pass continues to be stamped with the “SSSS” designation when travels by air, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 392. Additionally, every time Mr. Shaout travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning.
60

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 61 of 94 PageID# 480
393. At no time was Mr. Shaout given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal terror watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
394. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Shaout given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
395. Upon information and belief, Mr. Shaout remains on the federal terror watch list.
396. Upon information and belief, Mr. Shaout’s nomination to and designation on the federal terror watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt‐by‐association, or First Amendment protected activities).
397. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Shaout is included on the federal terror watch list, Defendants disseminated and are continuing to disseminate his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Saleem Ali 398. 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, when he attempted to re‐enter the United States after a brief vacation in Canada. 399. CBP officers confiscated his two phones, asked him for his passwords to access the two phones, and upon information and belief, the CBP officers downloaded the data from his phones.
61

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 62 of 94 PageID# 481
400. CBP officers kept his phones and did not return them until the following day. 401. Moreover, every time Mr. Ali travels by air, his boarding pass is stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 402. Additionally, every time Mr. Ali travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning. 403. Mr. Ali filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 404. Mr. Ali received a letter as described in paragraph 135 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 405. At no time was Mr. Ali given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal terror watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 406. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Ali given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights. 407. Upon information and belief, Mr. Ali remains on the federal terror watch list. 408. Upon information and belief, Mr. Ali’s nomination to and designation on the federal terror watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt‐by‐association, or First Amendment protected activities). 409. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Ali is included on the federal terror watch list, Defendants disseminated and are continuing to disseminate his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private
62

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 63 of 94 PageID# 482
corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Shahir Anwar 410. Mr. Shahir Anwar is the brother of Plaintiff Mr. Samir Anwar. 411. Every time Mr. Anwar travels by air, since 2014, his boarding pass is stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 412. Additionally, every time Mr. Anwar travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning. 413. Mr. Anwar filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 414. On March 23, 2015, Mr. Anwar received a letter as described in paragraph 135 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 415. Mr. Anwar’s boarding passes continue to be stamped with the “SSSS” designation every time he travels by air. 416. At no time was Mr. Anwar given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal terror watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 417. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Anwar given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights. 418. Upon information and belief, Mr. Anwar remains on the federal terror watch list.
63

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 64 of 94 PageID# 483
419. Mr. Anwar no longer travels by air nor does he travel to Canada by land in order to avoid being subjected to the above treatment or the treatment experienced by his brother, Plaintiff Samir Anwar, described below.
420. Upon information and belief, Mr. Anwar’s nomination to and designation on the federal terror watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt‐by‐association, familial status—based upon his brother’s or other family member’s designation—or First Amendment protected activities).
421. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Anwar is included on the federal terror watch list, Defendants disseminated and are continuing to disseminate his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Samir Anwar 422. Mr. Samir Anwar is the brother of Plaintiff Mr. Shahir Anwar. 423. Every time Mr. Anwar travels by air, his boarding pass is stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 424. Mr. Anwar filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 425. On August 7, 2014, Mr. Anwar received a letter as described in paragraph 135 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 426. On or about February 22, 2015, Mr. Anwar was referred to secondary inspection and detained by CBP at the border stop at the Blue Water Bridge Port of Entry in
64

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 65 of 94 PageID# 484
Port Huron, Michigan, when he attempted to re‐enter the United States after a brief trip to Canada.
427. Mr. Anwar handed a CBP officer the letter from DHS, however the CBP officer responded that the letter does not mean anything and does not have any impact on the situation.
428. CBP officers confiscated his phone, asked him for his password to access the phone, and upon information and belief, the CBP officers downloaded the data from his phone.
429. Moreover, Mr. Anwar was interrogated about his religious beliefs and religious affiliations.
430. Mr. Anwar’s boarding pass continues to be stamped with the “SSSS” designation when travels by air, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.”
431. Additionally, every time Mr. Anwar travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning.
432. At no time was Mr. Anwar given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal terror watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
433. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Anwar given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
434. Upon information and belief, Mr. Anwar remains on the federal terror watch list.
65

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 66 of 94 PageID# 485
435. Upon information and belief, Mr. Anwar’s nomination to and designation on the federal terror watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt‐by‐association, familial status—based upon his brother’s or other family member’s designation—or First Amendment protected activities).
436. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Anwar is included on the federal terror watch list, Defendants disseminated and are continuing to disseminate his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Muhammad Yahya Khan 437. Every time Mr. Muhammad Yahya Khan travels by air, since approximately 2012, his boarding pass is stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 438. Additionally, every time Mr. Khan travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning. 439. Moreover, every time Mr. Khan returns to the United States on an international flight, CBP officers escort Mr. Khan from the gate, detain him, search his belongings and interrogate him. 440. As a result, Mr. Khan has missed at least two connecting flights. 441. On or about December, 2013, Mr. Khan was interrogated in his home by FBI agents about his religious practices and beliefs, including the mosque he attends, whether he
66

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 67 of 94 PageID# 486
is a regular attendee at his mosque, whether his mosque preaches extremism, and whether he knows anyone affiliated with the Taliban.
442. Upon requesting their business cards, the FBI agents refused to provide Mr. Khan their business cards.
443. In 2012, Mr. Khan was referred to secondary inspection and detained by CBP at the border stop at the Blue Water Bridge, Port Huron, Michigan, when he attempted to re‐ enter the United States after a brief vacation in Canada.
444. Mr. Khan no longer travels by land into the United States in order to avoid being subjected to the above treatment.
445. Mr. Khan filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 446. On July 14, 2015, Mr. Khan received a letter as described in paragraph 135 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 447. Mr. Khan’s boarding pass continues to be stamped with the “SSSS” designation when travels by air, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 448. Additionally, every time Mr. Khan travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning. 449. At no time was Mr. Khan given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal terror watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 450. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Khan given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights. 451. Upon information and belief, Mr. Khan remains on the federal terror watch list.
67

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 68 of 94 PageID# 487
452. Upon information and belief, Mr. Khan’s nomination to and designation on the federal terror watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt‐by‐association, or First Amendment protected activities).
453. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Khan is included on the federal terror watch list, Defendants disseminated and are continuing to disseminate his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Hassan Fares 454. On August 2, 2016, Mr. Fares’ boarding pass was stamped with the “SSSS” designation for the first time, indicating that he was still designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 455. After boarding his flight, a TSA agent removed Mr. Fares from the plane and required him to pass through airport security once again, although he had already underwent screening to get to his gate. 456. He was subjected to extensive searches and pat downs. 457. By the time Mr. Fares returned to the gate, he missed his flight. 458. Upon witnessing the above incidents, upon information and belief, his family learned of his status on the federal terror watch list. 459. At no time was Mr. Fares given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal terror watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
68

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 69 of 94 PageID# 488
460. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Fares given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
461. Upon information and belief, Mr. Fares remains on the federal terror watch list.
462. Upon information and belief, Mr. Fares’ nomination to and designation on the federal terror watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt‐by‐association, or First Amendment protected activities).
463. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Fares is included on the federal terror watch list, Defendants disseminated and are continuing to disseminate his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Zuhair El‐Shwehdi 464. Every time Mr. Zuhair El‐Shwehdi travels by air, since at least 2011, his boarding pass is stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 465. Mr. Shwehdi is frequently unable to board his flights until he is “cleared” by DHS to board the flight, a process that can take hours. 466. Frequently, upon returning from a flight, Mr. El‐Shwehdi is escorted from the gate or, on at least two occasions off of the plane from his seat, by FBI and/or TSA agents, before he is detained and subjected to prolonged questioning and searches of his person and belongings.
69

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 70 of 94 PageID# 489
467. On November 22, 2013, upon landing at John F. Kennedy International Airport, the pilot announced over the loud speaker that all passengers should have their passports and boarding passes ready for inspection.
468. FBI and/or TSA agents boarded the plane and inspected the passengers’ passports and boarding passes until they located Mr. El‐Shwehdi, escorted him off of the plane, detained him and subjected him to prolonged questioning and searches of his person and belongings.
469. As a result, Mr. El‐Shwehdi has missed flight connections and was forced to stay overnight at the airport on at least two separate occasions.
470. Moreover, El‐Shwehdi was unable to attend two funerals of immediate relatives as a result of the above treatment.
471. TSA agents frequently confiscate his electronics, request his passwords, and upon information and belief, download information from them.
472. As a result, Mr. El‐Shwehdi stopped carrying electronics with him during flights.
473. On multiple occasions, some of the same of Mr. El‐Shwehdi’s family members were traveling with him; and upon witnessing the above incidents, upon information and belief, they learned of his status on the federal terror watch list.
474. Mr. El‐Shwehdi filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 475. As of the date of this filing, Mr. El‐Shwehdi has not received a response from DHS, nor has he been assigned a Redress Control Number.
70

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 71 of 94 PageID# 490
476. At no time was Mr. El‐Shwehdi given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal terror watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation.
477. Moreover, at no time was Mr. El‐Shwehdi given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
478. Upon information and belief, Mr. El‐Shwehdi remains on the federal terror watch list.
479. Mr. El‐Shwehdi no longer travels by air since 2013 in order to avoid being subjected to the above treatment.
480. Upon information and belief, Mr. El‐Shwehdi’s nomination to and designation on the federal terror watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt‐by‐association, or First Amendment protected activities).
481. Upon information and belief, because Mr. El‐Shwehdi is included on the federal terror watch list, Defendants disseminated and are continuing to disseminate his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff Mahmoud Eraqi 482. On or about May 4, 2016, Mr. Mahmoud Eraqi’s boarding pass was stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.”
71

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 72 of 94 PageID# 491
483. That day, upon arriving at the Toronto Pearson International Airport, Mr. Eraqi was pulled aside by U.S. Customs officers, detained and subjected to questioning and searches of his person and belongings.
484. The U.S. Customs officers confiscated his phone and, upon information and belief, downloaded information from it.
485. Moreover, on or about one or two months prior to this filing, Mr. Eraqi was surrounded by 4‐5 armed CBP officers, handcuffed and detained in a holding cell for nearly 5 hours at the Peace Bridge Port of Entry in Port Huron, Michigan, when he attempted to re‐ enter the United States after a brief trip to Canada.
486. One of the CBP officers advised Mr. Eraqi that he was flagged in their system as “armed and dangerous.”
487. During the above instances, Mr. Eraqi’s friends were traveling with him, and upon witnessing the above incidents, upon information and belief, they learned of his status on the federal terror watch list.
488. Upon information and belief, Mr. Eraqi remains on the federal terror watch list.
489. Upon information and belief, Mr. Eraqi’s nomination to and designation on the federal terror watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt‐by‐association, or First Amendment protected activities).
490. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Eraqi is included on the federal terror watch list, Defendants disseminated and are continuing to disseminate his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments,
72

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 73 of 94 PageID# 492
private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff John Doe No. 1 491. On or about January, 2015, Mr. John Doe No. 1’s boarding pass was stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he had been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 492. Additionally, every time Mr. Doe No. 1 returns to the United States from international travel, Mr. Doe is subjected to prolonged detention and questioning. 493. Suddenly, shortly after Mr. Doe No. 1 was designated on the federal terror watch list, many of his individual and business bank accounts were closed without notice or an explanation of the reasons why they were being closed, including bank accounts at JPMorgan Chase Bank, TCF Bank and PNC Bank. 494. Upon information and belief, Defendant TSC disseminated the stigmatizing label of “known or suspected terrorist” attached to Mr. Doe No. 1 to JPMorgan Chase Bank, TCF Bank and PNC Bank, and as a result, his bank accounts were closed without notice. 495. Mr. Doe No. 1 filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 496. As of the date of this filing, Mr. Doe No. 1 has not received a response from DHS, nor has he been assigned a Redress Control Number. 497. At no time was Mr. Doe No. 1 given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal terror watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 498. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Doe No. 1 given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights.
73

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 74 of 94 PageID# 493
499. Upon information and belief, Mr. Doe No. 1 remains on the federal terror watch list.
500. Upon information and belief, Mr. Doe No. 1’s nomination to and designation on the federal terror watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt‐by‐association, or First Amendment protected activities).
501. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Doe No. 1 is included on the federal terror watch list, Defendants disseminated and are continuing to disseminate his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff John Doe No. 2 502. On or about May, 2010, Mr. John Doe No. 2 appeared at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport upon returning on a flight from a trip to Turkey. 503. He was referred to secondary screening and subjected to a prolonged interrogation. 504. During his interrogation, CBP officers began looking through pictures on Mr. Doe No. 2’s laptop and asked him questions about his place of worship, the religious leader at his mosque, whether Mr. Doe No. 2 knew anyone who was involved in terrorist activities, and whether he had information about other congregants at his place of worship. 505. Every time Mr. Doe No. 2 travels by air, since his May, 2010 trip, his boarding pass is stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.”
74

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 75 of 94 PageID# 494
506. Additionally, every time Mr. Doe No. 2 travels by air, he is referred to secondary inspection and subjected to prolonged searches and questioning.
507. Mr. Doe No. 2 filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 508. On January 19, 2016, Mr. Doe No. 2 received a letter as described in paragraph 135 above and was assigned a Redress Control Number. 509. At no time was Mr. Doe No. 2 given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal terror watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 510. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Doe No. 2 given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights. 511. As of the date of this filing, it is unclear whether Mr. Doe No. 2 remains on the federal terror watch list. 512. Upon information and belief, Mr. Doe No. 2’s nomination to and designation on the federal terror watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt‐by‐association, or First Amendment protected activities). 513. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Doe No. 2 is included on the federal terror watch list, Defendants disseminated and are continuing to disseminate his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, among other official and private entities and individuals.
75

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 76 of 94 PageID# 495
Plaintiff John Doe No. 3 514. Every time Mr. John Doe No. 3 travels by air, since 2002, his boarding pass is stamped with the “SSSS” designation, indicating that he has been designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.” 515. In fact, in 2002, upon returning from an international flight, Mr. Doe No. 3 was escorted off of the plane by FBI agents, before he was interrogated and threatened by agents from different government agencies. 516. Mr. Doe No. 3 is frequently unable to board his flights until he is “cleared” by DHS to board the flight, a process that can take hours. 517. Moreover, Mr. Doe No. 3 is frequently called over the loud speakers at the airport after he has already reached the gate prior to take off to go back to security, only to be detained and subjected to further prolonged interrogations and searches. 518. Additionally, TSA agents confiscated his phones, requested his passwords, and upon information and belief, downloaded information from them. 519. On July 14, 2016, Mr. Doe No. 3 was surrounded by several armed CBP officers, handcuffed and detained for several hours at the border stop at the Sault Ste. Marie International Bridge, Michigan, when he attempted to re‐enter the United States after a brief trip to Canada. 520. He was informed during that detention that he was surrounded by several armed CBP officers because he was flagged in their system as “armed and dangerous.” 521. On or about 2006, Mr. Doe No. 3’s JPMorgan Chase Bank was suddenly closed a few days after he opened it without notice or an explanation of the reasons why it was being closed.
76

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 77 of 94 PageID# 496
522. Upon information and belief, Defendant TSC disseminated the stigmatizing label of “known or suspected terrorist” attached to Mr. Doe No. 3 to JPMorgan Chase Bank, and as a result, his bank account was closed without notice.
523. Mr. Doe No. 3 lost lucrative employment opportunities as a result of being designated as a “known or suspected terrorist.”
524. On multiple occasions, some of the same of Mr. Doe No. 3’s family members and/or friends were traveling with him, and upon witnessing the above incidents, upon information and belief, they learned of his status on the federal terror watch list.
525. Mr. Doe No. 3 filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 526. As of the date of this filing, Mr. Doe No. 3 has not received a response from DHS, nor has he been assigned a Redress Control Number. 527. At no time was Mr. Doe No. 3 given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal terror watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 528. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Doe No. 3 given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights. 529. Upon information and belief, Mr. Doe No. 3 remains on the federal terror watch list. 530. Mr. Doe No. 3 limits travels by air when necessary in order to avoid being subjected to the above treatment. 531. Upon information and belief, Mr. Doe No. 3’s nomination to and designation on the federal terror watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race,
77

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 78 of 94 PageID# 497
ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt‐by‐association, or First Amendment protected activities).
532. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Doe No. 3 is included on the federal terror watch list, Defendants disseminated and are continuing to disseminate his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, among other official and private entities and individuals.
Plaintiff John Doe No. 4 533. On August 1, 2016, Mr. Doe No. 4 arrived at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport in order to board his flight to Morocco. 534. Prior to his flight, Mr. Doe No. 4 presented himself at the Delta Airlines ticket counter before his flight. 535. Delta Airlines personnel were unable to check Mr. Doe No. 4 in for his flight. 536. The personnel spoke on the phone with a DHS representative to obtain clearance to allow Mr. Doe No. 4 to board his flight. 537. The personnel, along with a Delta Airlines supervisor spoke with two men dressed in suits, who upon information and belief were FBI agents. 538. The Delta Airlines supervisor returned to the counter and informed Mr. Doe No. 4 that he was on the No Fly List and would not be permitted to board his flight. 539. Before Mr. Doe No. 4 was denied the ability to board his flight, he did not receive any notice, from a government agency or anyone else, that he would be unable to board his flight or that his name was placed on the No Fly List. Mr. Doe No. 4 had been able previously to board flights in the United States without difficulty.
78

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 79 of 94 PageID# 498
540. On or about August 24, 2015, Mr. Doe No. 4 was involved in a minor car accident in Clinton Township, Michigan.
541. As he was providing his witness statement to the local police officer, the officer pulled up Mr. Doe No. 4’s profile on his computer screen.
542. Mr. Doe No. 4 saw next to his name at the top of the officer’s computer screen a warning in large, red block letters “Possible Terrorist,” and a note to exercise caution.
543. On at least two separate occasions, while being pulled over for traffic stops, the police officers approached Mr. Doe No. 4 vehicle with their hand on their gun ready to shoot, as though they had information that Mr. Doe No. 4 was armed and extremely dangerous.
544. Upon information belief, Defendants, including Defendant TSC, disseminated the stigmatizing label of “known or suspected terrorist” attached to Mr. Doe No. 4 to the local police officers, and as a result, after running his license plate on an automatic license plate reader, they treated Mr. Doe No. 4 as armed and extremely dangerous.
545. On or about December 12, 2014, after having been pulled over while driving for a minor traffic violation by a local police officer in Warren, Michigan, the police officer conducted a search of Mr. Doe No. 4’s vehicle.
546. Upon finding a broken Airsoft gun with an orange tip, the police officer immediately handcuffed Mr. Doe No. 4 and transported him to the local jail, where he was detained in a holding cell overnight.
547. While he was in his holding cell, he overheard police officers discussing his arrest, when one of the officers said that if he were the officer that had pulled him over, he would have shot and killed him.
79

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 80 of 94 PageID# 499
548. Later that night, while Mr. Doe No. 4 was being fingerprinted, he saw paperwork in connection with his case next to him on the counter that contained the text “FBI Hold” and “no phone.”
549. The officer taking Mr. Doe No. 4’s fingerprints told Mr. Doe No. 4 that he must have “done something really bad to get the FBI involved,” and that he “thinks something is going down.”
550. Mr. Doe No. 4 filed a redress request through DHS TRIP. 551. As of this date, Mr. Doe No. 4 has not received a response from DHS. 552. Nonetheless, Mr. Doe No. 4 remains on the No Fly List. 553. Mr. Doe No. 4 is planning on traveling to Morocco for his engagement party as he is planning on becoming engaged to his fiancée. 554. However, Mr. Doe No. 4 is unable to travel to Morocco as a result of his placement on the No Fly List. 555. At no time was Mr. Doe No. 4 given notice of the factual basis for his placement on the federal terror watch list, and at no time was he offered a meaningful opportunity to contest his designation. 556. Moreover, at no time was Mr. Doe No. 4 given notice of the deprivation of his liberty interests or violation of his constitutional rights. 557. Upon information and belief, Mr. Doe No. 4’s nomination to and designation on the federal terror watch list was made based solely upon a hunch (based upon his race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, guilt‐by‐association, or First Amendment protected activities).
80

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 81 of 94 PageID# 500
558. Upon information and belief, because Mr. Doe No. 4 is included on the federal terror watch list, Defendants disseminated and are continuing to disseminate his designation as a “known or suspected terrorist” to state and local authorities (including the local police officers above), foreign governments, corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, among other official and private entities and individuals.
COUNT I FAILURE TO PROVIDE POST‐DEPRIVATION NOTICE AND HEARING IN VIOLATION OF
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS (Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 5 U.S.C. § 702)
559. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein. 560. Each of the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens learned that he or she was placed on the federal terror watch list subsequent to being added on the federal terror watch list and sought to challenge such placement. 561. Defendants’ actions as described above in refusing to provide Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens with any notice at all of their placement which deprived Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of constitutionally protected liberty interests. 562. Defendants’ actions in nominating Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens to the federal terror watch list blatantly violate the requirement that “’nominations’ must not be solely based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities.” 49 U.S.C. § 114(h)(3).
81

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 82 of 94 PageID# 501
563. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens have a liberty interest in traveling free from unreasonable burdens that are not reasonably tailored within, to, and from the United States, through land border crossings and over U.S. air space.
564. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens have a right to be free from false government stigmatization as individuals who are “known or suspected to be” terrorists, or who are otherwise associated with terrorist activity, when such harm arises in conjunction with the additional consequences that follow from being listed as well as the 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 unreasonable burdens.
565. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens have a liberty interest in nonattainder (ie: the interest against being singled out for punishment without trial). Defendants’ actions have singled out Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for punishments that include, but are not limited to, inability to travel by air and unreasonable burdens placed upon traveling by air to and from the United States, over U.S. air space and at land border crossings, and false association with a list of individuals suspected of terrorism.
566. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens, having been burdened or prevented from boarding on commercial flights or entering the United States at land border crossings, having had their bank accounts closed, having been prevented from 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, having been prevented from test driving or purchasing vehicles at a car dealership, and having sought to challenge their
82

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 83 of 94 PageID# 502
placement on the federal terror watch list, are entitled to a constitutionally adequate legal mechanism that affords them notice of the reasons and bases for their placement on the federal terror watch list and a meaningful opportunity to contest their continued inclusion on the federal terror watch list. Defendants have even failed to provide the most basic ingredient of due process, which is notice that the government has deprived a person of their protected rights.
567. Moreover, Defendants have officially imposed on Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens the stigmatizing label of “known or suspected terrorists” without a constitutionally adequate legal mechanism.
568. Further, Defendants disseminated the stigmatizing label attached to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of “known or suspected terrorists” to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, the captains of sea‐faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
569. By imposing on Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens the stigmatizing label of “known or suspected terrorists” and by failing to provide Plaintiffs and others similarly situated with a constitutionally adequate legal mechanism, Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens of their protected liberty interests, including but not limited to their liberty interests in traveling, freedom from false stigmatization, and nonattainder, and thus violated the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens without affording them due process of law and will continue to do so into the future if Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens are not afforded the relief demanded below.
83

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 84 of 94 PageID# 503
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory and injunctive relief in the form described in the Prayer for Relief below, plus all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
COUNT II DEPRIVATION OF PROTECTED LIBERTIES IN VIOLATION OF FIFTH AMENDMENT
RIGHT TO SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS (Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 5 U.S.C. § 702) 570. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein. 571. Because Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens were listed 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 commercial flights or entering the United States at land border crossings, are arbitrary and capricious, lack even a rational relationship to any legitimate government interest, and have unduly deprived Plaintiffs of constitutionally protected rights, including their liberty interests in travel, freedom from false stigmatization, and nonattainder. 572. Defendants’ actions in nominating Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens to the federal terror watch list blatantly violate the requirement that “’nominations’ must not be solely based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities.” 49 U.S.C. § 114(h)(3). 573. By placing Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens on the federal terror watch list, Defendants have placed an undue burden on their fundamental right of movement.
84

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 85 of 94 PageID# 504
574. By placing Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens on the federal terror watch list, Defendants have treated Plaintiffs like second‐class citizens.
575. Defendants’ watch list lacks a compelling interest insofar as their true purpose is to provide law enforcement with a tool to coerce American Muslims into becoming informants.
576. Defendants’ watch list are also not narrowly tailored insofar as the federal terror watch list are entirely and demonstrably ineffectual and obvious alternatives exist.
577. Defendants’ actions in placing Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens on the federal terror watch list, officially imposing on Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens the stigmatizing label of “known or suspected terrorists,” and disseminating the stigmatizing label to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, the captains of sea‐faring vessels, among other 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 traditional ideas of fair play and decency.
578. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens, having been burdened or prevented from boarding on commercial flights or entering the United States at land border crossings, having had their bank accounts closed, having been prevented from 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, having been prevented from test driving or purchasing vehicles at a car dealership, and having sought to challenge their
85

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 86 of 94 PageID# 505
placement on the federal terror watch list, are entitled to a constitutionally adequate legal mechanism that affords them notice of the reasons and bases for their placement on the federal terror watch list and a meaningful opportunity to contest their continued inclusion on the federal terror watch list. Defendants have even failed to provide the most basic ingredient of due process, which is notice that the government has deprived a person of their protected rights.
579. Because Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens have not been charged with any crimes and are United States Citizens, Plaintiffs challenge their placement and the placement of others similarly situated American citizens on the federal terror watch list on a broad, as‐applied basis.
580. Plaintiffs’ substantive due process challenge is also facial, as there are no circumstances where their placement or the placement of others similarly situated on the federal terror watch list is narrowly tailored to achieve any compelling government interest.
581. Defendants have thus violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and the constitutional rights of other similarly situated American citizens without affording them due process of law and will continue to do so into the future if Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens are not afforded the relief demanded below.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory and injunctive relief in the form described in the Prayer for Relief below, plus all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
86

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 87 of 94 PageID# 506
COUNT III UNLAWFUL AGENCY ACTION IN VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ACT, 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706 (Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 5 U.S.C. § 702) 582. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein. 583. Defendants’ actions in placing Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens on the federal terror watch list, officially imposing on Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens the stigmatizing label of “known or suspected terrorists,” and disseminating the stigmatizing label to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, the captains of sea‐faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals, without a constitutionally adequate legal mechanism, were and are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, otherwise not in accordance with law, and contrary to constitutional rights, power, privilege, or immunity, and should be set aside as unlawful pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706. 584. Defendants’ actions in nominating Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens to the federal terror watch list blatantly violate the requirement that “’nominations’ must not be solely based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities.” 49 U.S.C. § 114(h)(3). 585. Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens, who had been unreasonably burdened or denied boarding on commercial flights or entering the United States across the border and sought to challenge their placement on the federal terror watch list, with a constitutionally adequate mechanism that affords them notice of the reasons and bases for their placement on the federal terror watch list and a
87

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 88 of 94 PageID# 507
meaningful opportunity to contest their continued inclusion on the federal terror watch list is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, otherwise not in accordance with law, and contrary to constitutional rights, power, privilege, or immunity, and should be set aside as unlawful pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706.
586. Because Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens do not present a security threat to commercial aviation, Defendants’ actions as described above in including Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens on the federal terror watch list that unreasonably burdens or prevents them from boarding commercial flights or entering the United States across the border, are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, otherwise not in accordance with law, and contrary to constitutional rights, power, privilege, or immunity, and should be set aside as unlawful pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706.
587. Because Defendants’ watch list is based on always‐wrong, or in the alternative almost‐always wrong, predictions of who among the innocent will engage in criminal conduct in the future, Defendants’ federal terror watch list violates 5 U.S.C. § 706’s prohibition on arbitrary government action.
588. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens are not required to exhaust the DHS TRIP process, under the holding in Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993). See United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 11‐cv‐00050 (2011); Dkt. 70 at 22; attached as Memorandum Opinion (Exhibit 4).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory and injunctive relief in the form described in the Prayer for Relief below, plus all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
88

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 89 of 94 PageID# 508
COUNT IV VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION (Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 5 U.S.C. § 702)
(Equal Protection)
589. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein. 590. Defendants’ actions in placing Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens on the federal terror watch list, officially imposing on Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens the stigmatizing label of “known or suspected terrorists,” and disseminating the stigmatizing label to state and local authorities, foreign governments, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, the captains of sea‐faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals, without a constitutionally adequate legal mechanism are discriminatory and constitute an action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment. 591. Defendants’ actions in nominating Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens to the federal terror watch list blatantly violate the requirement that “’nominations’ must not be solely based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment protected activities.” 49 U.S.C. § 114(h)(3). 592. By placing Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens on the federal terror watch list, Defendants have treated Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens like second‐class citizens. 593. Defendants’ above‐described actions were motivated by the religious status of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens and on the basis of the constitutionally‐protected free exercise of religion of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens.
89

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 90 of 94 PageID# 509
594. Defendants’ above‐described actions have had a discriminatory effect upon and have disparately impacted Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens who are Muslim American travelers, and not travelers of other faiths.
595. Defendants’ above‐described actions, policies, course of conduct, or pattern of practice that mandate or permit the above‐described treatment of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated American citizens does not serve a compelling state interest or a legitimate or public purpose, nor are they the least restrictive means or narrowly tailored to achieve any such interest.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory and injunctive relief in the form described in the Prayer for Relief below, plus all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
COUNT V VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
(Non‐Delegation) 596. The foregoing allegations are realleged and incorporated herein. 597. Congress has not provided the Executive Branch with intelligible principles from which the Executive can implement its watch list schemes regarding civil aviation and national security. 598. Congress has not directed the Executive Branch to create either a No Fly List or a Selectee List. 599. Congress has not authorized the Executive Branch to utilize the federal terror watch list to encourage financial institutions to close bank accounts or ban wire transfers, to encourage car dealerships to restrict test drives or purchases of vehicles, or state and local
90

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 91 of 94 PageID# 510
law enforcement to detain individuals based on their watch list status. 600. Congress has not authorized the Executive Branch to disseminate the terror
watch list to local and state authorities, foreign countries, private corporations, private contractors, airlines, gun sellers, car dealerships, financial institutions, the captains of sea‐ faring vessels, among other official and private entities and individuals.
601. The Executive Branch’s assignment of the watch listing function to TSC violates Congress’ directive that TSA determine who belongs on federal terror watch lists and the consequences that flow from being on those lists.
602. Congress has not delegated to TSA the authority to create a process that can culminate in the removal of individuals from the TSDB.
603. In the alternative, Congress’s delegation to TSA to create a redress process is defective because the Executive Branch has allocated watch list authority in a manner that prevents TSA from creating a redress process.
604. As a result, Defendants have illegally acted beyond their authority. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Honorable Court grant declaratory and injunctive relief in the form described in the Prayer for Relief below, plus all such other relief this Court deems just and proper including costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request:
1. A declaratory judgment that Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act;
91

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 92 of 94 PageID# 511
2. A declaratory judgment that Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate the non‐delegation doctrine of the United States Constitution;
3. An injunction that: a. requires Defendants to remedy the constitutional and statutory violations identified above, including the removal of Plaintiffs from any watch list or database that burdens or prevents them from flying or entering the United States across the border; and, b. requires Defendants to provide individuals designated on the federal terror watch list with a legal mechanism that affords them notice of the reasons and bases for their placement on the federal terror watch list and a meaningful opportunity to contest their continued inclusion on the federal terror watch list;
4. A trial by jury; 5. An award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses of all litigation, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2412; and, 6. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
JURY DEMAND NOW COME Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned counsel, and hereby demand trial by jury of the above‐referenced causes of action.
92

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 93 of 94 PageID# 512

Dated: September 23, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
THE LAW OFFICE OF GADEIR ABBAS
BY: /s/ Gadeir Abbas GADEIR I. ABBAS Attorney for Plaintiffs 1155 F Street NW, Suite 1050 Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (720) 251‐0425 Fax: (720) 251‐0425 Email: gadeir.abbas@gmail.com
Licensed in Virginia, not in D.C. Practice limited to federal matters
COUNCIL ON AMERICAN‐ISLAMIC RELATIONS, MICHIGAN
BY: /s/ Lena Masri LENA F. MASRI (P73461) Attorney for Plaintiffs Legal Director 30201 Orchard Lake Rd., Suite 260 Farmington Hills, MI 48334 Phone: (248) 559‐2247
AKEEL & VALENTINE, PLLC
BY: /s/ Shereef Akeel SHEREEF H. AKEEL (P54345) Attorney for Plaintiffs 888 W. Big Beaver Rd., Ste. 910 Troy, MI 48084 Phone: (248) 269‐9595 shereef@akeelvalentine.com

93

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 94 of 94 PageID# 513 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 23, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court for the Eastern District of Virginia using the ECF System, which will send notification to the registered participants of the ECF System as listed on the Court’s Notice of Electronic Filing.
/s/ Gadeir Abbas
94

 
 Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 47 Filed 09/05/17 Page 1 of 20 PageID# 948

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

ANAS ELHADY, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.

) ) )
) ) Civil Action No. 1 :16-cv-375 (AJT/JFA)

CHRISTOPHER M. PIEHOTA, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs are twenty-five United States citizens who claim they are included in the Government's Terrorism Screening Database, referred to colloquially as the Government's terrorist watch list (the "TSDB" or "Watch List"). They allege this status subjects them to additional screening when traveling by air or entering the country at a land border or port, and can impact other rights, such as the ability to buy a gun, to work in certain parts of an airport, or to obtain the necessary license to transport hazardous materials. In this action, Plaintiffs challenge their alleged inclusion in the TSDB on the grounds that it violates (1) procedural due process (Count I), (2) substantive due process (Count II), (3) the Administrative Procedure Act (Count III), (4) the Equal Protection Clause (Count IV), and (5) the non-delegation doctrine (Count V). Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 28] (the "Motion"). Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' claims are not justiciable, and to the extent they are, Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts that make any of their claims plausible. For the reasons below, the Motion will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 47 Filed 09/05/17 Page 2 of 20 PageID# 949
I. BACKGROUND Briefly summarized, Plaintiffs allege the following facts in their Amended Complaint, which, together with all reasonable inferences, are taken as true for the purposes of the Motion: 1
In September 2003, the Attorney General, pursuant to a presidential directive,
established the Terrorism Screening Center (the "TSC") as a multi-agency center for
coordinating infonnation pertaining to terrorist activity. Am. Compl. (ECF No. 22), 51. The
TSC, which is administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (the "FBI"), manages the
Government's consolidated Terrorism Screening Database, sometimes referred to as the
Government's terrorist watch list (the "TSDB" or "Watch List"). Id. The TSC determines whether to place individuals in the TSDB based on "nominations" received from the National
Counterterrorism Center (the "NCTC") and the FBI. Two subsets of the TSDB are known as the
Selectee List and the No Fly List. Id. , 52. Individuals on the No Fly List are prohibited from boarding commercial flights, whereas individuals on the Selectee List are required to undergo
enhanced screening before doing so. Id. Plaintiffs are twenty-five United States citizens who are included in the TSDB.2
Plaintiffs are all Muslim (or, in the case of Baby Doe 2, born to a Muslim family). Id. ,i,i 13-37.
1 Certain of these facts, panicularly some of the statutory and regulatory background, are supplemented, where appropriate, with matters of public record. Further background on statutory and regulatory framework is also found i2nAthltehoMugohhatmheedAompeinnidoendsCcoitmedphlaeirnetinco. ntains claims and allegations based on the No Fly List, Plaintiffs do not currently contend that any Plaintiffis on the No Fly List. PlaintiffMark Amri alleges that he was on the No Fly List in January 2016 but that following his request for a review of his status, he received a letter from OHS in September 2016 stating, "the U.S. Government knows of no reason, related to your inquiry, that you should be unable to fly." Am. CompI. ,i,i 366-76. Plaintiffs also notifled the Court on January 12, 2017, that the other three Plaintiffs alleged to be included on the No Fly List, Ausama Elhuzayel, Donald Thomas, and John Doe No. 4, have received similar letters since Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint. See Notice of Recent Factual Developments Pertaining to Plaintiffs Ausama Elhuzeyel, Donald Thomas, and John Doe No. 4 (ECF No. 43). All four of these Plaintiffs have also been able to fly subsequently. Id. at 2 n.2; Am. Compl. ,r 375. It is plausible based on Plaintiffs' allegations in the Amended Complaint, however, that they remain on the Selectee List and/or the Watch List.

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 47 Filed 09/05/17 Page 3 of 20 PageID# 950
An indeterminate number of Plaintiffs are also on the Selectee List.3 Id.� 52. Defendants are the Principal Deputy Director of the TSC, the Deputy Director of Operations of the TSC, the Administrator of the Department of Homeland Security's ("OHS") Transportation Security Administration (the "TSA"), the Director of TSA's Office of Redress, the Director of the NCTC, the Director of the FBI, and the Director of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CPB"). Id. �� 38-45.
Plaintiffs, in general, are routinely subjected to additional screening when they fly on a commercial airplane and when they enter the country at a land border or port, although the frequency and invasiveness of that secondary screening varies. For example, Plaintiff Anas
Elhady ("Elhady") is subject to secondary inspection "every time" he flies. Id. 1 142. Elhady
also "is routinely referred to secondary inspection, handcuffed and detained by CBP at land border crossings when he attempts to re-enter the United States from Canada," which can last
"approximately four to twelve hours." Id. 1 159. Plaintiff Ahmad Al Halabi ("Halabi") is
subject to secondary screening "every time" he flies; "is frequently unable to board his flights until he is 'cleared' by DHS," which "oftentimes takes hours"; and has missed flights due to "prolonged searches and interrogations." Id. 11219-221. Halabi was also handcuffed by CBP officers when reentering the United States in 2014 through a land border following vacation in Canada and detained in a holding cell for approximately two to three hours, and in a waiting area for another three to four hours, during which time the officers confiscated cell phone. Id. �� 22223. Because of this treatment, "Halabi no longer travels by air nor does he travel to Canada by
3 Plaintiffs' allegations include references to both the Watch List and the Selectee List and do not precisely allege that each Plaintiffis on the Selectee List, although all Plaintiffs allege that they are on the Watch List and have had similar experiences when traveling. Given Plaintiffs' limited access to information concerning the Watch List and the Selectee List, and the Court's obligation to construe the Plaintiffs' allegations in a light most favorable to them, the Court will assume for the purposes of this Motion that all Plaintiffs are alleging the same constitutional deprivations as a result of being included in the TSDB.

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 47 Filed 09/05/17 Page 4 of 20 PageID# 951
land unless absolutely necessary for business purposes." Id. , 225. In April 2014, Plaintiff Wael Hakmeh ("'Hakmeh") "was referred to secondary screening and subjected to a prolonged interrogation" after his flight home from a business trip to Turkey. Id.,, 250-51. Since then, Hakmeh sometimes, but not always, has been subjected to secondary screening when he flies. Id. ,1254-59. In August 2016,a TSA agent removed Plaintiff Hassan Fares ("Fares") from the plane after boarding for his flight and required him to go through security again, even though he had already gone through security, during which time he was ''subjected to extensive searches and pat downs." Id. 1� 454-56. These actions caused Fares to miss his flight. Id. 1457. Plaintiff Zuhair El-Shwehdi ("El-Shwehdi") has been subjected to secondary screening every time he flies since 2011 and "is frequently unable to board his flights until he is 'cleared' by OHS," which "can take hours." Id. 11464-65. "Frequently, upon returning from a flight," El­ Shwehdi "is escorted from the gate or, on at least two occasions off of the plane from his seat, by FBI and/or TSA agents, before he is detained and subjected to prolonged questioning and searches ofhis person and belongings," which has caused him to miss connecting flights. Id. ,, 466-69.
Based on their experiences, most of the Plaintiffs have submitted an inquiry with the Department of Homeland Security's Traveler Redress Inquiry Program ("OHS TRIP"), which is administered by the TSA. See, e.g., id. 11226, 239,305. Under OHS TRIP, travelers who have been referred for additional screening or delayed or denied airline boarding for any reason, including because he or she believes she was erroneously placed on the Watch List, can inform TSA and request that it review the situation. See 49 C.F.R. §§ 1560.201-207. If the traveler's name is a match or near match with a name on the Watch List, "TSA, in coordination with the TSC and other appropriate Federal law enforcement or intelligence agencies, if necessary, will

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 47 Filed 09/05/17 Page 5 of 20 PageID# 952
review all the documentation and information requested from the individual, correct any erroneous information, and provide the individual with a timely written response." 49 C.F.R. § 1560.205(d). This process includes research and review of information on the Watch List and on related United States government information systems. At the conclusion of this review, DHS TRIP informs the traveler that the process has concluded. While the redress process can result in the correction of erroneous information, the concluding letter neither confirms nor denies whether the individual is on the Watch List or the Selectee List. However, pursuant to court orders requiring the Government to provide enhanced procedural protections for United States Citizens on the No Fly List, individuals can learn if they are on the No Fly List through the DHS TRIP process. Plaintiffs who have submitted DHS TRIP inquiries, other than those who have received letters informing them that there is no reason they should not be able to fly, have either received no response as of the filing of the Amended Complaint or have received acknowledgement letters neither confirming nor denying their status on the Watch List. See, e.g., id. ,i,i 187, 390.
In addition to enhanced screening, Plaintiffs have also experienced a number ofother consequences, which they have reason to believe are attributable to their inclusion on the Watch List. For example, Western Union does not allow Plaintiff Yaseen Kadura to conduct wire transfers, which, on information and belief, is because the TSC informed Western Union that he was on the Watch List. Id. 1 195. PlaintiffDoe 1's accounts at JPMorgan Chase Bank, TCF Bank, and PNC Bank were closed without explanation or notice soon after he was first subjected to secondary screening while flying, which he believes was based on the banks' being informed of his inclusion in the TSDB. Id ,i1491-93. On June 30, 2016, when Plaintiff Ibrahim Awad ("Awad") attempted to test drive a vehicle at a Chevrolet car dealership in Sterling Heights,

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 47 Filed 09/05/17 Page 6 of 20 PageID# 953
Michigan, a sales associate infonned him that, "although he was 'not supposed to tell"' Awad, Awad's "name showed up as being designated on the federal terror watch list" when the associate input his infonnation in the dealership's system. Id. 11346-47. According to the sales associate, "Awad was not permitted to test drive or purchase any vehicles until the dealership obtain clearance from the FBI allowing him to do so." Id. , 348. Around thirty minutes later, the sales associate told Awad that the FBI sent an email clearing Awad to test drive the vehicle. Id. ,i 350. Plaintiff Osama Hussein Ahmed was "unable to apply for employment at the airport where his brother was employed," as a result of being added to the No Fly List. Id. ,i 211. The local police treated Plaintiff John Doe 4 ("Doe 4") as threatening, which he believes was based on the TSC disseminating his Watch List status to local police. In particular, Doe 4 saw a denotation, "Possible Terrorist," beside his name on a local police officer's screen when he was
giving the officer a witness statement following a minor traffic incident. Id. ,r,r 540-42. On two
other occasions, police officers approached Doe 4's car on traffic stops with guns drawn. Id. , 543. Doe 4 was also detained in jail overnight after an officer found an airsoft gun in his car. Id.
,r 546. While being fingerprinted at the jail, Doe 4 saw that his paperwork said, "FBI Hold" and
"no phone," and the fingerprinting officer told him "he must have 'done something really bad to
get the FBI involved,' and that he 'thinks something is going down."' Id. 1 548-49.
Plaintiffs also allege that inclusion in the Watch List impacts a number of other legal rights. For example, they note that under New Jersey law, individuals on the Watch List are prohibited from buying a gun, and other states are considering similar measures. Id. ,i 71. Inclusion on the Watch List can also prevent an individual from obtaining the HAZMAT license necessary to transport hazardous materials, as the Government's security screening includes a Watch List-cross reference. Id. 173. Similarly, Watch List status can prevent an individual

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 47 Filed 09/05/17 Page 7 of 20 PageID# 954
from obtaining a job at an airport or with an airline, as there are restrictions on the ability to enter
the "sterile areas" of airports. Id. ,r 74. Watch List status is also given to courts when making
bail determinations and can result in the denial or revocation of a Federal Aviation Administration license. Id. 176-77.
Furthermore,based on Plaintiffs' personal experiences,the publicly available legal consequences ofbeing on the Watch List,government and other publications,and the public statements of government officials,Plaintiffs believe their Watch List status is distributed beyond just Defendants' agencies and airlines,including to other government agencies,state and local law enforcement,foreign governments,gun sellers,car dealers,financial institutions, and
courts. See, e.g., id ,r,r 62-77.
II. LEGAL STANDARD A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. See Randall v. United States, 30 F.3d 518,522 (4th Cir. 1994); Republican Party ofNC. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943,952 (4th Cir. 1994). A claim should be dismissed "if, after accepting all well­ pleaded allegations in the plaintiffs complaint as true . .. it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim entitling him to relief." Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231,244 (4th Cir. 1999); see also Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d 391,405 (4th Cir. 2001). In considering a motion to dismiss,"the material allegations of the complaint are taken as admitted," Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411,421 (1969) (citations omitted),and the court may consider exhibits attached to the complaint,Fayetteville Investors v. Commercial Builders, Inc., 936 F. 2d 1462,1465 (4th Cir. 1991). Moreover,"the complaint is to be liberally construed in favor of plaintiff." Id.; see also Bd. ofTrs. v. Sullivant Ave. Props., LLC, 508 F. Supp. 2d 473,475 (E.D. Va. 2007). In addition,
7

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 47 Filed 09/05/17 Page 8 of 20 PageID# 955
a motion to dismiss must be assessed in light of Rule S's liberal pleading standards, which require only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Nevertheless, while Rule 8 does not require "detailed factual allegations," a plaintiff must still provide "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (the complaint "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level" to one that is ''plausible on its face"); see also Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298. 302 (4th Cir. 2008). As the Supreme Court stated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2008), "[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the Court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the conduct alleged."
The party invoking the court's jurisdiction typically bears the burden of proving the existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 200 (4th Cir. 2008). "[W]hen a defendant asserts that the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to support subject matter jurisdiction, the trial court must apply a standard patterned on Rule 12(b)(6) and assume the truthfulness of the facts alleged." Kerns v. United States, 585 F.3d 187, 193 (4th Cir. 2009).
III. ANALYSIS A. Justiciability
1. Lack ofJurisdiction Defendants contend that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims to the extent that Plaintiffs challenge the adequacy of the OHS TRIP process, which Defendants contend amounts to a TSA order that the courts of appeals have exclusive authority to review under 49 U.S.C. § 46110. The Fourth Circuit, however, has rejected this same contention in connection

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 47 Filed 09/05/17 Page 9 of 20 PageID# 956
with a challenge to the No Fly List. See Order, Mohamed v. Holder, No. 11-1924 (4th Cir.May 28, 2013). The Court finds no reason not to apply that holding to Plaintiffs' challenge to the Watch List. In that regard, the Fourth Circuit reasoned that placement on the No Fly List "necessarily requires scrutiny of both the TSC's and the TSA's actions," and "49U.S.C. § 46110 gives [the courts of appeals] broad powers of review over orders of the TSA" but not "similar independent authority over the TSC." Id at 5. Plaintiffs' claims also "challenge the inter­ agency actions of the TSC and the TSA" and are therefore within the scope of the Fourth Circuit's holding and reasoning. See id.; 49C.F.R.§ 1560.205(d) ("TSA, in coordination with the TSC and other appropriate Federal law enforcement or intelligence agencies, if necessary, will review all the documentation and information requested from the individual, correct any erroneous information, and provide the individual with a timely written response.").
2. Standing Defendants next contend that Plaintiffs have not adequately established their standing to bring these claims. In particular, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not adequately pleaded a real and immediate threat of injury because the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint do not contain sufficient detail from which to infer Plaintiffs' present status on the Watch List and the consequences flowing therefrom (e.g., additional screening when flying or reentering the country). To establish standing, a plaintiff must set forth specific facts to demonstrate that (1) he has "suffered an 'injury in fact' ... which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) 'actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical"; ( 2) there exists "a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of'; and (3) "it must be 'likely,' as opposed to merely 'speculative,' that the injury will be 'redressed by a favorable decision."' Lujan v. Defenders of

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 47 Filed 09/05/17 Page 10 of 20 PageID# 957
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (citations and footnote omitted). Plaintiffs must demonstrate standing for every claim, but a claim is justiciable ifeven only one plaintiffhas standing to raise it. Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352, 370-71 (4th Cir. 2014). Plaintiffs have adequately alleged a constitutional injury in fact. The Amended Complaint contains sufficient factual detail to infer at this stage that Plaintiffs are presently on the Watch List and face ongoing, real-world consequences as a result, such as additional screening when they fly or enter the country and the inability to obtain a job at an airport. Therefore, Plaintiffs have standing to assert their claims.4 B. Count 1: Plaintiffs' Procedural Due Process Claim
The Due Process Clause guarantees that "[n]o person shall be .. . deprived oflife, liberty, or property, without due process oflaw." U.S. Const. amend. V. "The procedural component of due process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive individuals of 'liberty' or 'property' interests within the meaning ofthe Due Process Clause." D.B. v. Carda/I, 826 F.3d 721, 741 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). A procedural due process claim requires a plaintiff to show "(1) a cognizable liberty or property interest; (2) the deprivation ofthat interest by some form ofstate action; and (3) that the procedures employed were constitutionally inadequate." Shirvinski v. U.S. Coast Guard, 673 F.3d 308, 314 (4th Cir. 2012). As a threshold matter, therefore, the government action complained ofmust "deprive individuals of'liberty' or 'property' interests within the meaning ofthe Due Process Clause of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment." Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1976). If
4 The Court also finds that Plaintiffs have alleged facts that make their claims against the CBP plausible at this stage. Plaintiffs allege that the CBP enforces and implements the challenged actions of the other Defendants, including the detention of persons on the Watch List for additional screening when they reenter the country at a land border or port. and accordingly that the CBP has engaged in the actions that Plaintiffs challenge as illegal. Thus, it is plausible that the CBP may need to be included in any remedial orders.
10

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 47 Filed 09/05/17 Page 11 of 20 PageID# 958
government deprivation concerns an interest protected by the Due Process Clause, a court must weigh three factors to determine what process is due: (I) "the private interest that will be affected by the official action"; (2) "the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards"; and (3) "the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail." Id. at 335; see also Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210,229 (1990) ("The procedural protections required by the Due Process Clause must be determined with reference to the rights and interests at stake in the particular case.").
1. Government Deprivation ofa Cognizable Liberty Interest Plaintiffs contend that their inclusion on the Watch List deprives them of the following interests protected by procedural due process: (1) the right of movement, and (2) liberty interests under the stigma-plus test.5 When the Due Process Clause is invoked, the inquiry begins "with a determination of the precise nature of the private interest that is threatened." Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 256 (1983). For that reason, and as an initial matter, Plaintiffs' broadly characterized "right of movement" fails to adequately describe the liberty interest at stake. Rather, Plaintiffs' movement-related liberty interests involve the right to travel by airplane or reenter the United States without being detained for additional screening.
a. Movement-Related Liberty Interest While it is undisputed that procedural due process is applicable to certain liberty interests created by statute, there is no clear test to determine those procedurally protected liberty interests
s The Amended Complaint also asserts that Plaintiffs have "a liberty interest in nonattainder (ie: the interest against being singled out for punishment without trial)." Am. Compl. � 565. But Plaintiffs have abandoned nonattainder as a liberty interest on which to base their procedural due process claim.
11

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 47 Filed 09/05/17 Page 12 of 20 PageID# 959
that derive implicitly from the Due Process Clause itself. See Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2136 (2015) (Scalia, J., plurality opinion); id. at 2142 (Breyer, J. dissenting).6 The three-justice plurality in Din found that procedurally protected liberty interests are those within the historic understanding of the Due Process Clause and, at most, also include implied fundamental liberty interests for the purposes ofsubstantive due process. See id. at 2133-38. In contrast, the four­ justice dissent favored a comparative approach, finding that procedurally protected liberty interests are those "sufficiently important" to "flow 'implicit[ly]' from the design, object, and nature of the Due Process Clause." Id. at 2142 (alteration in original). One district court to address whether inclusion on the Selectee List triggers procedural due process protections concluded that "[g]ovemment action implicates the right to travel under the Due Process Clause when it 'actually deters travel, when impeding travel is its primary objective, or when it uses a classification that serves to penalize the exercise of the right."' Beydoun v. Lynch, No. 14-cv13812, 2016 WL 3753561, at *4 (E.D. Mich. July 14, 2016) (quoting Attorney Gen. ofN.Y. v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898, 903 (1986) (Brennan, J., plurality opinion)) (holding that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged a procedural due process claim because, among other reasons, they had not alleged that they were deterred from travel).
The Court need not decide at this stage precisely which test determines whether the travel-related liberty interest asserted here is entitled to procedural protection. No matter which judicially recognized test is used, Plaintiffs have adequately alleged a procedurally protected liberty interest. In that regard, Plaintiffs allege that their placement on the Watch List or the Selectee List subjects them to invasive additional screening and other liberty-constraining
6 The controlling concurrence in Din did not address this question but rather assumed a procedurally protected libeny interest in finding that the procedures at issues were constitutionally adequate. See 135 S. Ct. at 2139-41 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
12

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 47 Filed 09/05/17 Page 13 of 20 PageID# 960
activities when they fly or reenter the country at a land border or port. Based on their personal experiences, Plaintiffs further allege that this additional screening can entail their being detained for hours while they are searched and questioned, and that such screening has caused them to avoid travel.
Taking these allegations as true, Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged at this stage that their inclusion in the Watch List or Selectee List caused them to suffer a deprivation of a liberty interest as that term is historically understood. The invasion of that liberty interest is no less tangible or unanchored in historical recognition than other interests previously found to deserve procedural protections. See, e.g., Din, 135 S. Ct. at 2143 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (listing procedurally protected liberty interests, including, for example, a student's right not to be suspended from class and a mentally ill prisoner's right not to take psychotropic drugs). Plaintiffs also allege that they have actually been deterred from traveling as a result of actual detentions. See Beydoun, No. 14-cv-13812, 2016 WL 3753561, at *4. Plaintiffs have therefore adequately alleged a cognizable liberty interest based on the consequences they suffer as a result of their travel.
b. Stigma-Plus Reputational Interest Procedural due process protections also extend to certain reputational injuries under the so-called "stigma-plus" test. To state a cognizable procedural due process claim under that test, "a plaintiff must demonstrate that his reputational injury was accompanied by a state action that "distinctly altered or extinguished' his legal status." Shirvinski, 673 F.3d at 315 (citing Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 711 (1976)). With respect to the "stigma" prong-the reputational injury­ the Court previously noted:
13

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 47 Filed 09/05/17 Page 14 of 20 PageID# 961
The Fourth Circuit has recognized in at least one case a •constitutional harm' based on the inclusion of defamatory information in a non-public government file if there is a 'likelihood' of dissemination to the public. Sciolino v. City ofNewport News, 480 F.3d 642,650 (4th Cir. 2007); but see Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341,384 (1976) (the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not implicated 'when there is no public disclosure' of the allegedly defamatory information and the defendant has no otherwise legally recognized interest at stake)." Mohamed v. Holder, No. 1:11-cv-50,2011 WL 3820711,at *7 (E.D. Va. Aug.26,2011) ("Mohamed f'). Here again,it is unsettled precisely how broadly defamatory information must be disseminated by the government to satisfy the stigma prong. See, e.g., Palka v. Shelton, 623 F.3d 447,454 (7th Cir.2010) ("The public-disclosure element requires that the defendant actually disseminate the stigmatizing comments in a way that would reach potential future employers or the community at large."); Johnson v. Martin, 943 F.2d 15, 17 (7th Cir.1991) (holding dissemination only within the proper chain of command does not constitute public disclosure). The ''plus" prong must be satisfied by a change in "a right or status previously recognized by ...law," Paul, 424 U.S. at 711,not simply damage that "flows from injury caused by the defendant to a plaintiff's reputation." Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226,234 (1991). For example,there is no stigma-plus claim where the government's actions "may have affected [the plaintiff's] private employment prospects" in the future but did not result in a changed legal status such as losing a government job or formally being barred from government contracting. See Shirvinski, 673 F.3d at 315. Here,Plaintiffs allege,based on their personal experiences and government and other public reports,that their status in the TS DB has been disseminated to third parties outside the relevant federal agencies and airlines, including state and local authorities,courts,foreign governments,gun sellers,banks,and car dealers. Plaintiffs' factual allegations plausibly allege that the dissemination of the Watch List may be so widespread that it is tantamount to public
14

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 47 Filed 09/05/17 Page 15 of 20 PageID# 962
disclosure, even if only distributed to other government and private entities that need the infonnation for official objectives. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have alleged facts that plausibly establish the stigma prong. Plaintiffs also plausibly allege that inclusion on the Watch List causes or substantially contributes to a number of tangible consequences to their legal rights or status, including, inter a/ia, foreclosing their ability to buy certain guns in certain states, to obtain the necessary license to transport hazardous materials, and to obtain certain jobs at an airport. Plaintiffs have therefore adequately alleged a cognizable, protectable interest under the stigma-plus test.
2. The Process Due The '"central meaning of procedural due process" is that "[p]arties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard; and in order that they may enjoy that right they must first be notified." Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80 (1972) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Mathews, 424 U.S. at 333 ("The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard 'at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner."') (quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545,552 (1965)); D.B. v. Cardal/, 826 F.3d 721, 741 (4th Cir. 2016) ("And when the government deprives a person of a protected liberty or property interest, it is obliged to provide notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature ofthe case.") (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs contend that because the Government refuses to notify individuals whether they are included in the TSDB, and therefore denies them an opportunity to participate in challenging their status, there are effectively no procedural protections. The Government concedes that '"the existing process does not permit" individuals "to learn their status with respect to a watchlist" but contends that its internal process provides sufficient procedural
15

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 47 Filed 09/05/17 Page 16 of 20 PageID# 963
protections from erroneous deprivations,without any opportunity to be heard. Defs.' Mem.of Law in Support of Defs.'Mot. to Dismiss the Am.Compl. (ECF No. 29),at 41.
Plaintiffs ' allegations plausibly allege a claim for a procedural due process violation. The Government's "trust us" approach is inconsistent with the fundamental procedural protections applicable to the deprivation of a protected liberty interest,including the right to be heard. Nevertheless,the ultimate merits of that claim are tethered to the Mathews factors, which are "fact-intensive consideration[s]," which "when considered within the context of [these] allegations,necessarily require an evidentiary record beyond that presented to the Court in connection with the defendants' motion to dismiss." Mohamed v. Holder, 995 F. Supp.2d 520, 538-39 (E.D.Va. 2014) ("Mohamed If'). C. Count 2: Plaintiffs' Substantive Due Process Claim
Unlike procedural due process,substantive due process "protects individual liberty against 'certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them."' Collins v. City ofHarker Heights, 503 U.S. 115,125 (1992) (citation omitted); Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S.292,301-02 (1993) ("[ S]ubstantive due process ...forbids the government to infringe certain fundamental liberty interests at all,no matter what process is provided,unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.") (internal quotation marks omitted). It "provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests," which are held to a more exacting standard of strict scrutiny. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S.702,719 (1997). To survive strict scrutiny,the government must demonstrate that its interference is necessary to further a compelling governmental interest and has been narrowly tailored to achieve that
16

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 47 Filed 09/05/17 Page 17 of 20 PageID# 964
interest. Hawkins v. Freeman, 195 F.3d 732, 739 (4th Cir. 1999). But the government only needs a rational basis for its interference with non-fundamental rights and liberty interests. Id.
For an asserted right to be deemed fundamental for the purposes of substantive due process, it must be "objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed." Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 721-22 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). As with the procedural due process inquiry, "a careful description of the asserted fundamental liberty interest" is required to make that determination. Id. at 722 (internal quotation marks omitted); Flores, 507 U.S. at 302 ("Substantive due process analysis must begin with a careful description of the asserted right, for the doctrine of judicial self-restraint requires us to exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field.") (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).
While Plaintiffs also contend here that their substantive due process claim must be assessed based on the general "right of movement," the analysis again calls for a more precise articulation of the right at issue. Here, Plaintiffs claim that as United States citizens who have never been convicted of a crime and are not under indictment or subject to arrest for any identifiable conduct, they have the right, anchored in the right to travel, and protected under substantive due process, to board a commercial airline and enter the country free of predetermined additional screening. But however one characterizes the right at issue, the impact of enhanced screening upon that right does not make the government's action impermissible no matter how rigorous the procedural protections for determining who is subjected to such screening. For these reasons, and those previously stated in Mohamed v. Holder, No. 1:11cvSO, -
17

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 47 Filed 09/05/17 Page 18 of 20 PageID# 965
-- F.Supp.3d ----,2017 WL 3086644,at 5-10 (E.D.Va.July 20,2017) ("Mohamed III"), Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for a violation of substantive due process. D. Count 3: Plaintiffs' Administrative Procedure Act Claim
Plaintiffs claim that Defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"),5 U.S.C.§ 706,by placing them in the TS DB "without a constitutionally adequate legal mechanism," which Plaintiffs contend was arbitrary,capricious,an abuse of discretion,or otherwise not in accordance with law. The issues in this APA claim essentially conflate with Plaintiffs' constitutional claims,and for the reasons stated above with respect to Plaintiffs' procedural due process claim,the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' factual allegations make plausible their claim that Defendants' actions were arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.
E. Count 4: Plaintiffs' Equal Protection Claim
The Equal Protection Clause prohibits the government from "deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection ofthe laws." U.S. Const.amend.XIV,§ 1. "In order to survive a motion to dismiss an equal protection claim,a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to demonstrate plausibly that he was treated differently from others who were similarly situated and that the unequal treatment was the result of discriminatory animus." Equity in Athletics, Inc. v. Dep 't ofEduc., 6 39 F.3d 91,108 (4th Cir.2011). To state a claim of unconstitutional discrimination based on a facially neutral law or policy,a plaintiff must allege facts that make it plausible that the law or policy "has been applied in an intentionally discriminatory manner " or "has an adverse effect on a protected group,and ...the adoption of the statute or policy was motivated by discriminatory animus." Williams v. Hansen, 326 F.3d 569,584 (4th Cir.200 3); Sylvia Dev. Corp. v. Calvert Cty., Md, 48 F.3d 810,819 (4th Cir.1995) (Even when a
18

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 47 Filed 09/05/17 Page 19 of 20 PageID# 966
government "action disparately impacts members ofa particular [protected] group,it will not be found to violate the Equal Protection Clause unless the plaintiff demonstrates that the action was motivated, at least in part,by an 'invidiously discriminatory' intent.").
The publicly disclosed criteria used in connection with the Watch List are facially neutral. See Mohamed 11,995 F.Supp.2d at 525-26. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs contend that they have plausibly pleaded intentional discrimination with respect to the TSDB based on the disproportionate number of Muslims that are included in the Watch List. Plaintiffs only factual allegation in support of that contention is that persons living in Dearborn, Michigan,a town of approximately 100,000 residents with a high Arab and Muslim population, are disproportionately included in the Watch List. Even accepting as true this factual allegation,and recognizing that disparate impact can evidence discriminatory intent in certain circumstances,see Sylvia Dev. Corp., 48 F.3d at 819, Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts sufficient to plausibly allege that the Watch List was created based on,or operates through, intentional discrimination. Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to state claim for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. F. Count 5: Plaintiffs' Non-Delegation Claim
Plaintiffs finally contend that Congress violated the non-delegation doctrine and that TSA and TSC exceeded their authority by creating the Watch List. But Congress explicitly directed TSA,"in consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies and air carriers,establish policies and procedures requiring air carriers ...to identify individuals on passenger lists who may be a threat to civil aviation or national security," and ''take . ..appropriate action with respect to that individual." 49 U.S.C.§ 114(h)(3). As explained previously, "the Court concludes that Congress has provided 'intelligible principles' both as to the goals TSA should seek to achieve and also how it should go about achieving them, while leaving the day-to-day implementation of
19

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 47 Filed 09/05/17 Page 20 of 20 PageID# 967
the scheme to TSA." Mohamed ill, 2017 WL 3086644, at*11. Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for a violation of the non-delegation doctrine.
IV. CONCLUSION For these reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' claims are justiciable, and that Plaintiffs have pleaded facts that make plausible their claims that Defendants violated their procedural clue process rights (Count I) and the APA (Count IJI), but have not sufficiently alleged that Defendants violated their substantive due process rights (Count II), the Equal Protection Clause (Count IV), or the non-delegation doctrine (Count V). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 28) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED lN PART and DENIED IN PART; it is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs claims for a violation of substantive due process (Count III), the Equal Protection Clause (Count TV), and the non-delegation doctrine (Count V), and these claims are hereby DTSM[SSED; and it is otherwise DENIED. The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this Order to all counsel of record.
Alexandria, Virginia September 5, 2017
20

 
 Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 178-19 Filed 04/23/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID# 5997
Exhibit 18

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 178-19 Filed 04/23/18 Page 2 of 7 PageID# 5998

IN T H E UNITED STATES DISTRI CT CO URT FOR T HE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

Anas E LHADY, et a l., P la int i f fs,
v.
CHARLES H. KABLE, et a l., Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:16-cv-375 (AJ T /JFA)

)

)

)

)

DECLARATION OF J E FFE RSON B. S ESSIONS Ill, ATTORN EY GENE RAL
I, JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, Ill, hereby state and declare as fo llows: 1. I am the Attorney General of the United States and head of the United States
Department of Justice ('"DOr), an Executive Department of the United States. See 28 U.S.C §§ 50 1,503, 509. The purpose ofthis declaration is to assert, at the request ofthe Federal
Bureau oflnvestigation ("'FBI''). and in my capacity as Attorney General and head of DOJ, a formal claim of the state secrets privilege in order to protect the national security interests of the United States. The statements made herein are based on my personal knowledge, on information provided to me in my official capacity, and on my evaluation of that information. As Attorney General, 1 possess original classification authority under Section 1.3 of Executive Order (E.O. 13526) dated December 29, 2009. See 75 Fed. Reg. 707.

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 178-19 Filed 04/23/18 Page 3 of 7 PageID# 5999
2. In the course of my official duties, I have been informed that Plaintiffs are twenty-three U.S. citizens who allege that they have been placed in the Government ' s terrorist screening database ('TSDB" ) in violation of their Fifth Amendment procedural due process rights. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that they were placed in the TSDB without notice of the purported deprivation or an opportunity to respond, that their liberty interest in unrestricted travel is infringed when they are subjected to additional screening at airports and land border crossings, and that the Government disseminates their watchlist status to various federal , state, local and private entities, which, they allege, causes reputational and other harm. I further understand that Plaintiffs have moved to compel the disclosure of documents and testimony that FBI has withheld in discovery on the basis of certain privileges, including the state secrets privilege. For example, I am advised that Plaintiffs' motion to compel seek several categories of documents that contain foreign government and other sensitive national security watchlisting information, including documents containing classified information concerning TSDB watchlisting policies and inclusion standards, as well as policies and practices regarding nominations to the TSDB, dissemination ofTSDB information, screening procedure for TSDB listees, redress documents,
and documents related to TSDB effectiveness. See Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, Dkt. No. 139.
3. As described further below, after personal consideration of the matter, I am formally asserting the state secrets privilege in this case in order to prevent the disclosure of certain foreign government and other sensitive national security watchlisting inforn1ation that is subject to discovery and disclosure in this case. In unclassified te1ms, my state secrets privilege assertion encompasses three categories of information described below. These categories of information appear: in (I) documents concerning the sharing of watchlisting information
2

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 178-19 Filed 04/23/18 Page 4 of 7 PageID# 6000

between and among the U.S. and foreign governments and the methods and procedures through
which this national security information is shared; (2) documents and information that describe
policies and procedures for how foreign partner information sharing occurs, and (3) documents
containing the Government's watchlisting procedures, policies, and practices. The three
categories of information over which I am asserting privilege are:
(1) Foreign Government Information. Information contained in documents that could be used to identify certain countries with which the U.S. has information-sharing agreements concerning the terrorist watchlist and the terms of agreements associated with particular countries.
(2) Other Sensitive National Security Information Pertaining to Information Sharing with Foreign Partners. Information that would reveal classified and sensitive details concerning the information sharing between the United States and foreign partners.
(3) Other Sensitive National Security Watcblisting Information. Other classified information associated with watchlisting, including classified documents and classified portions ofdocuments concerning watchlisting policies and procedures.

4.

These three categories of information are discussed in further detail in the

classified Declaration of Michael McGanity, Assistant Director of the FBI's Counte1terrorism

Division, which is available solely for the Court's ex parte, in camera review. I have read and

carefully considered the classified McGaiTity Declaration. After careful and actual personal

consideration of the matter, I have concluded that disclosure of the categories of infonnation

described above and in more detail in the classified McGarrity declaration reasonably could be

expected to cause significant harm to the national security, and I therefore formally assert the

state secrets privilege over this information.

3

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 178-19 Filed 04/23/18 Page 5 of 7 PageID# 6001
5. First, l concur with the determination ofthe FBI that the disclosure of information about sensitive fore ign government relationships, including in documents subject to the motion to compel, reasonably could be expected to cause significant harm to the national security by having a chilling effect on foreign government cooperation and assistance, jeopardize coll aborative efforts with foreign governments, and lead to gaps in vital intelligence. This detem1ination extends to informat ion that could identifY the specific foreign governments with which the United States has infonnation-sharing agreements, in the context of the specific terms of those agreements. I concur with the FBI that the need to protect this identifYing information includes where they reside in documents not marked or treated as classified, for the reasons explained by the FBI in the classified McGarrity declaration.
6. Second, I agree with the judgment of the FB I that the disclosure of information, policies and procedures for how foreign partner information sharing occurs, including in documents subject to the motion to compel, could be expected to cause significant harm to the national security by suggesting possible points of infiltration fo r tenori st networks or adversaries to exploit and otherwise negatively impact foreign relations and have a chilling effect on the free flow of vital information to the United States intell igence and law enforcement agencies.
7. Third, I agree with the judgment of the FB I that the disclosure of information about highly sensitive operational documents relating to watchlisting, including in documents subject to the motion to compel, reasonably could be expected to cause significant harm to the national security by enabling individuals and/or groups to employ countermeasures, evade detection and/or take steps to harm U.S. interests, and revealing classified investigative infonnat ion obtained and created by the FBI, as well as sources and methods of investigation.
4

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 178-19 Filed 04/23/18 Page 6 of 7 PageID# 6002

My assertion of the state secrets privilege is limited to the classified information in these

documents, and 1 understand that the unclassified portions of these documents are the subject of a separate accompanying law enforcement privilege assertion by the FBi.

8.

Any further elaboration concerning the foregoing matters on the public record

would reveal information that cou ld cause the very harms my assertion of the state secrets

privilege is intended to prevent. Again, the classified McGarrity declaration, submitted for ex

parte. in camera review, provides a more detailed explanation of the information over which 1

am asserting the privilege and the harms to national security that would result fro m disclosure of

that information.

9. On September 23, 2009, DOJ announced a new Executive Branch policy

governing the asse rtion a nd defense of the state secrets privilege in litigation. Unde r this policy,

DOJ will defe nd an assertion ofthe state secrets privilege in litigation, and seek dismissal of a

claim on that basis, on ly when necessary to protect against the risk of significant harm to

national security. See Exhibi t I (State Secrets Policy), § l(A). The policy provides further that

an applicatio n of a privilege assertion must be narrowly tailored and that dismissal be sought

pursuant to the privilege assertion on ly when necessary to prevent significant harm to national

security. !d. § l (B). Moreover, "[t]h e Departm ent will not defend an invocati on of the privilege

in order to: (i) conceal violati ons of the law, inefficiency, or administrative error; (ii) prevent

embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency of the United States Government; (iii)

restrain competition; o r (iv) prevent or de lay the release of informatio n the release of which

would not reasonably be ex pected to cause significant harm to nati onal securi ty." !d. § 1(C).

The policy also establishes detailed procedures for review of a proposed assertion ofthe state

5

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 178-19 Filed 04/23/18 Page 7 of 7 PageID# 6003
secrets privilege in a particular case. Id. § 2. Those procedures require submissions by the relevant Government departments or agencies specifying ..(i) the nature of the information that must be protected from unauthorized disclosure; (ii) the significant harm to national security that disclosure can reasonably be expected to cause; [and] (iii) the reason why unauthorized disclosure is reasonably likely to cause such harm." !d. § 2(A). Based on my personal consideration of the matter, I have determined that the requirements for an assertion and defense of the state secrets privilege have been met in this case in accord with the September 2009 State Secrets Policy.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this~•~y of April, 2018, in Washington, D.C.
~ RSON B. SE SlONS Ill ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
6

 
 Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 1 of 32 PageID# 17055

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

ANASELHADY,^/^/.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

V.

)

)

CHARLES H.KABLE,et al,

)

Director ofthe Terrorist Screening Center, )

in his official capacity

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-375(AJT/JFA)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs are twenty-three United States citizens' who claim that because oftheir

inclusion in the federal government's Terrorist Screening Database("TSDB"),referred to

colloquially as"the Watchlist," they have suffered a range ofadverse consequences without a

constitutionally adequate remedy.^

In Mohamed v. Holder,2015 WL 4394958(E.D. Va. July 16,2015),the Court concluded

that the Department ofHomeland Security Traveler Redress Inquiry Program("DHS TRIP"),as

that process existed at the time,did not provide a constitutionally adequate remedy for a United

States citizen who had been listed on the No Fly List, which is a subset of persons included in the

TSDB who are prohibited from boarding a commercial aircraft that traverses U.S. airspace, and

'These Plaintiffs are:(1)Anas Elhady;(2)Baby Doe 2, by his next friend. Father Doe 2;(3)Yaseen Kadura;(4) Osama Hussein Ahmed;(5)Ahmed Ibrahim Al Halabi;(6)Michael Edmund Coleman;(7) Wael Hakmeh;(8) Hassan Shibiey;(9)Ausama Elhuzayel;(10)Donald Thomas;(I I) Murat Frljuckic;(12)Ibrahim Awad;(13)Mark Amri;(14)Adnan Khalil Shaout;(15)Saleem Ali;(16)Shahir Anwar;(17)Samir Answar;(18)Muhammad Yahya
Khan;(19)Hassan Fares;(20)Zuhair El-Shwehdi;(21)John Doe 2:(22)John Doe 3;and(23)John Doe 4.
'Plaintiffs bring their claims against the following Defendants in their official capacities based on their involvement in the administration ofthe TSDB:(I)the Director, Principal Deputy Director, and Deputy Director for Operations ofthe Terrorist Screening Center;(2)the Director ofthe Department ofHomeland Security Traveler Redress
Inquiry Program;(3)the Director ofthe National Counterterrorism Center;(4)the Administrator ofthe Transportation Security Administration;(5)the Director ofthe Federal Bureau ofInvestigation; and(6)the Acting
Commissioner of United States Customs and Border Protection.

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 2 of 32 PageID# 17056

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 3 of 32 PageID# 17057

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 4 of 32 PageID# 17058

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 5 of 32 PageID# 17059

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 6 of 32 PageID# 17060

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 7 of 32 PageID# 17061

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 8 of 32 PageID# 17062

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 9 of 32 PageID# 17063

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 10 of 32 PageID# 17064

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 11 of 32 PageID# 17065

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 12 of 32 PageID# 17066

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 13 of 32 PageID# 17067

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 14 of 32 PageID# 17068

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 15 of 32 PageID# 17069

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 16 of 32 PageID# 17070

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 17 of 32 PageID# 17071

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 18 of 32 PageID# 17072

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 19 of 32 PageID# 17073

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 20 of 32 PageID# 17074

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 21 of 32 PageID# 17075

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 22 of 32 PageID# 17076

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 23 of 32 PageID# 17077

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 24 of 32 PageID# 17078

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 25 of 32 PageID# 17079

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 26 of 32 PageID# 17080

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 27 of 32 PageID# 17081

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 28 of 32 PageID# 17082

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 29 of 32 PageID# 17083

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 30 of 32 PageID# 17084

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 31 of 32 PageID# 17085

Case 1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA Document 323 Filed 09/04/19 Page 32 of 32 PageID# 17086

 
 Elhady v. Kable, 993 F.3d 208 (2021)

993 F.3d 208 United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Anas ELHADY; Osama Hussein Ahmed; Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi; Michael Edmund Coleman;
Murat Frljuckie; Adnan Khalil Shaout; Wael Hakmeh; Saleem Ali; Samir Anwar; John Doe, No.
2; John Doe, No. 3; Shahir Anwar; Baby Doe, 2; Yaseen Kadura; Hassan Shibly; Ausama
Elhuzayel; Donald Thomas; Ibrahim Awad; Muhammad Yahya Khan; Hassan Fares; Zuhair
El-Shwehdi; John Doe, No. 4; Mark Amri, Plaintiffs – Appellees, v.
Charles H. KABLE, Director of the Terrorist Screening Center, in his official capacity; Kelli Ann
Burriesci, Principal Deputy Director of the Terrorist Screening Center in her official capacity; Timothy P. Groh, Deputy Director for Operations
at the Terrorist Screening Center in his official capacity; Deborah Moore, Director of Department
of Homeland Security Traveler Redress Inquiry Program in her official capacity; Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Director of the National
Counterterrorism Center in his official capacity; David Pekoske, Administrator of the
Transportation Security Administration in his official capacity; Christopher Wray, Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation in his official capacity; Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting
Commissioner of United States Customs and Border Protection in his official capacity, Defendants – Appellants,
The Rutherford Institute; Cato Institute; Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law & Equality; Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc.; Firearms Policy Foundation; Jeffrey Kahn; Electronic Frontier Foundation;
Muslim Advocates; American Civil Liberties Union; American-Arab Anti-discrimination Committee; Arab American Institute; Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law; Center
for Constitutional Rights; Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility Project At City University of New York; Sikh
Coalition, Amici Supporting Appellees. Anas Elhady; Osama Hussein Ahmed; Ahmad Ibrahim Al Halabi; Michael Edmund Coleman; Murat Frljuckie; Adnan Khalil Shaout; Wael
1

Hakmeh; Saleem Ali; Samir Anwar; John Doe, No. 2; John Doe, No. 3; Shahir Anwar; Baby Doe, 2; Yaseen Kadura; Hassan Shibly; Ausama Elhuzayel; Donald Thomas; Ibrahim Awad; Muhammad Yahya Khan; Hassan Fares; Zuhair El-Shwehdi; John Doe, No. 4; Mark Amri, Plaintiffs – Appellees, v. Charles H. Kable, IV, Director of the Terrorist
Screening Center, in his official capacity; Kelli Ann Burriesci, Principal Deputy Director of the
Terrorist Screening Center in her official capacity; Timothy P. Groh, Deputy Director for Operations
at the Terrorist Screening Center in his official capacity; Deborah Moore, Director of Department
of Homeland Security Traveler Redress Inquiry Program in her official capacity; Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Director of the National
Counterterrorism Center in his official capacity; David P. Pekoske, Administrator of the
Transportation Security Administration in his official capacity; Christopher Asher Wray, Director
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in his official capacity; Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of United States Customs and
Border Protection in his official capacity, Defendants – Appellants,
The Rutherford Institute; Cato Institute; Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law & Equality; Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc.; Firearms Policy Foundation; Jeffrey Kahn; Electronic Frontier Foundation;
Muslim Advocates; American Civil Liberties Union; American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; Arab American Institute; Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law; Center
for Constitutional Rights; Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility Project At City University of New York; Sikh
Coalition, Amici Supporting Appellees.
No. 20-1119, No. 20-1311 |
Argued: January 26, 2021 |
Decided: March 30, 2021
Synopsis Background: Individuals whose names had been entered

Elhady v. Kable, 993 F.3d 208 (2021)
in the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), and who were routinely subjected to additional inspections at airports, brought civil rights action for alleged violation of their Fifth Amendment Due Process rights. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, No. 1:16-cv-00375, Anthony J. Trenga, J., denied government’s motion for summary judgment.
Holdings: Granting the government’s petition for permission to appeal, the Court of Appeals, Wilkinson, Circuit Judge, held that:
delays that plaintiffs experienced at airports and at the border in boarding flights or entering the country did not rise to level of infringement on their protected due process liberty interests in traveling, and
entry of the plaintiffs’ names in the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) was insufficient to support a Fifth Amendment due process claim for reputational injury.
Reversed and remanded.
Procedural Posture(s): On Appeal; Motion for Summary Judgment.
*212 Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00375-AJT-JFA)
Attorneys and Law Firms
ARGUED: Joshua Paul Waldman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Gadeir Ibrahim Abbas, CAIR LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, G. Zachary Terwilliger, United States Attorney, Sharon Swingle, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Lena F. Masri, Justin Sadowsky, CAIR LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. John W. Whitehead, Douglas R. McKusick, THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE, Charlottesville, Virginia; Ilya Shapiro, Clark M. Neily III, CATO INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C.; Bradley D. Jones, Nicole P. Desbois, ODIN, FELDMAN & PITTLEMAN, P.C., Reston, Virginia, for Amici The Rutherford Institute and
2

Cato Institute. Robert S. Chang, Jessica Levin, Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, Ronald A. Peterson Law Clinic, SEATTLE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Seattle, Washington; Muhammad U. Faridi, Sofia G. Syed, Andrew Willinger, PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP, New York, New York, for Amicus The Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality. Matthew Larosiere, FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, Sacramento, California; Reilly Stephens, Alexandria, Virginia, for Amici Firearms Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation. Patrick Toomey, Noor Zafar, Hina Shamsi, Hugh Handeyside, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, New York, New York, for Amici American Civil Liberties Union, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Arab American Institute, Brennan Center for Justice, Center for Constitutional Rights, Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility Project, and the Sikh Coalition. Andrew T. Tutt, R. Stanton Jones, Stephen K. Wirth, Shira V. Anderson, ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Professor Jeffrey D. Kahn. Matthew W. Callahan, MUSLIM ADVOCATES, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Muslim Advocates. Matthew Borden, Athul Acharya, Gunnar Martz, BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP, San Francisco, California; Saira Hussain, Mark Rumold, Kit Walsh, ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, San Francisco, California, for Amicus Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Before WILKINSON, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Opinion
Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judge Wilkinson wrote the opinion, in which Judge Richardson and Judge Quattlebaum joined.
WILKINSON, Circuit Judge:
*213 To protect against acts of terrorism, the government maintains the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB). One of the chief uses of the TSDB is to screen travelers in airports and at the border. The plaintiffs, twenty-three individuals who allege they are in the TSDB, object to the delays and inconveniences they have experienced in

Elhady v. Kable, 993 F.3d 208 (2021)
airports and at the border. They allege the TSDB program violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by failing to include more procedural safeguards.
The term “national security” is too often bandied loosely and carelessly about, but this is no program of marginal consequence. It lies at the very heart of our country’s effort to identify those who would inflict upon the public irretrievable loss and irreparable mass harms. By bringing this across-the-board attack on a system vital to public safety—rather than more focused individual challenges to particular law enforcement actions—plaintiffs face a demanding legal standard. Procedural due process claims require showing that the government violated constitutionally protected liberty interests. Plaintiffs cannot meet that burden. The government has had authority to regulate travel and control the border since the beginning of the nation. Indeed, this authority is a core attribute of sovereignty. The delays and burdens experienced by plaintiffs at the border and in airports, although regrettable, do not mandate a complete overhaul of the TSDB.
Nor are plaintiffs’ alleged reputational injuries more persuasive. The government has not publicly disclosed their TSDB status, the inconveniences protested reflect no singular disapprobation, and plaintiffs have not demonstrated the loss of any legal rights due to their alleged TSDB inclusion.
This by no means places the TSDB program above the law. Individual applications of the program may run afoul of recognized legal prohibitions and thus remain subject to judicial review. But any wholesale reworking or significant modification of the program rests within the purview of the democratic branches. Two of our sister courts of appeals reached the same conclusions in similar challenges to the TSDB. See Abdi v. Wray, 942 F.3d 1019 (10th Cir. 2019); Beydoun v. Sessions, 871 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2017). We find these decisions persuasive and decline the invitation to create a circuit split. We therefore reverse the district court’s conclusion to the contrary and remand with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the government.
I.
3

A.
The rise of international terrorism in the twenty-first century pushed the government to establish a national security apparatus to combat it. Created by executive order, the TSDB is the federal government’s consolidated watchlist of known or suspected terrorists. The TSDB is maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), a multi-agency center administered by the FBI. The FBI and TSC work in coordination with the National Counterterrorism Center and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components, including the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
There are 1,160,000 individuals in the TSDB, but only about 4,600 of them are *214 U.S. citizens. J.A. 378. Individuals enter the TSDB through nomination, usually by a federal law enforcement agency. Before an individual is placed in the TSDB, a multi-step process is followed that includes review by TSC staff. The nomination must rely upon “articulable intelligence or information” which “creates a reasonable suspicion that the individual is engaged, has been engaged, or intends to engage, in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid or in furtherance of, or related to, terrorism and/or terrorist activities.” J.A. 380–81. TSC considers a broad variety of factors in deciding whether to add someone to the list, including an individual’s travel history, associates, business associations, international connections, financial transactions, and ethnic or religious affiliations. TSC receives around 113,000 nominations annually and around 99% are accepted.
One of the most significant uses for the TSDB is in airports by the TSA, which relies on it to screen airline passengers. For purposes of air travel, the TSDB’s entries are organized into important subcategories. The No Fly List is the most restrictive category; individuals in that category are prohibited from boarding commercial flights on U.S. carriers and flights through U.S. airspace. J.A. 378. Individuals on the Selectee List, by contrast, are permitted to board commercial flights after undergoing enhanced screening. J.A. 321. The TSA may also designate passengers for enhanced screening who meet the reasonable suspicion standard for TSDB inclusion and for whom the TSDB record contains a full name and date of birth. This is known as the “Expanded Selectee List.” Individuals on the Expanded Selectee List are subject to the same enhanced screening as those on the Selectee

Elhady v. Kable, 993 F.3d 208 (2021)
List. J.A. 324 n.15. The difference between the Selectee List and the Expanded Selectee List is that the former requires “additional substantive derogatory criteria.” J.A. 324 n. 15, 378 n.5.
An individual’s airport experience differs depending on his status in the TSDB. As explained by the Executive Director for Vetting in the TSA’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis, all individuals traveling through an airport are subject to standard screening, which includes examining luggage with a scanner and screening individuals with a walk-through metal detector, Advanced Imaging Technology machine, or a pat-down. J.A. 324–25 n.16, 331, 333. Individuals on the TSDB’s Selectee or Expanded Selectee Lists are subject to enhanced screening, as are other passengers chosen randomly or for other reasons by the TSA. Enhanced screening is a relatively common experience for frequent airport travelers because the TSA will often randomly select people for this screening. Further, most passengers chosen for enhanced screening are not in the TSDB. J.A. 330–31. During enhanced screening, agents again search the person, screen the individual’s property with explosives trace detection, physically investigate the inside of any luggage, and examine the individual’s electronics (to ensure they can be powered on) and footwear. J.A. 333–34 n.27. A typical enhanced screening takes ten to fifteen minutes, though it can take longer. J.A. 334. TSA is also authorized to require additional screening of all passengers at the gate. J.A. 325.
Another major user of the TSDB is the CBP, which employs it to vet people entering at ports of entry on both land and sea borders. All travelers must present themselves to a CBP officer, who vets them and may check their luggage to ensure compliance with customs laws. J.A. 411. Based on the totality of the circumstances, CBP officers have broad discretion to require travelers to go through secondary inspection. The length of this inspection varies depending *215 on the individual, whether the person is at an airport or border location, and the nature of the CBP’s suspicion. J.A. 413–15. The CBP’s digital law enforcement system alerts officers if a screened individual is in the TSDB. J.A. 413–14. Although CBP agents do not have a formal policy of subjecting TSDB members to secondary inspection, common sense suggests that travelers included in the TSDB are more likely to be chosen.
The TSC makes the TSDB available to federal law
4

enforcement agencies, state and tribal law enforcement agencies, some foreign governments, and some private companies working in sensitive security areas, like airlines and nuclear facilities. J.A. 379–80. When an entity accesses the TSDB, it does not view classified information or the reasons a person was placed in the database. It contains only the biographical and biometric information necessary to allow individuals to be identified. J.A. 377.
The government has adopted policies designed to prevent erroneous placements in the TSDB. Each nominating agency must have internal procedures to prevent errors in its nominations and must annually review its nominations of all U.S. persons (citizens and lawful permanent residents) to the TSDB. J.A. 386. TSC also conducts a biannual review of all U.S. persons in the TSDB to ensure that the underlying information still supports the nomination and performs audits to confirm that its data is accurate and current. J.A. 387.
But Congress made the determination that additional procedural safeguards were needed. Congress directed DHS to develop a post-inclusion redress process for travelers who believe they have been delayed or prohibited from boarding a commercial aircraft because they have been wrongly identified as a threat. See 49 U.S.C. § 44926(a), (b)(1); 49 U.S.C. §§ 44903(j)(2)(C)(iii)(I), (j)(2)(G)(i). TSA administers the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP), through which individuals may request redress if they experienced travel-related difficulties at an airport or port of entry. 49 C.F.R. §§ 1560.3, 1560.205. DHS TRIP receives approximately 15,000 completed inquiries annually, 98% of which have no connection to any identity in the TSDB. J.A. 389. If an individual is in the TSDB, the government reviews the information it relied upon in initially labeling that person and any new information to reassess whether that person belongs in the TSDB. About thirty-five full-time employees handle these reviews. At the conclusion of the process, DHS TRIP sends the traveler a letter with the result of the inquiry. However, the government does not disclose whether the petitioner was actually in the TSDB.
In fact, the government has a general policy of not disclosing TSDB status, whether positive or negative, in response to inquiries. J.A. 391. The reason for this is apparent. Disclosure would disrupt and potentially destroy counterterrorism investigations because terrorists

Elhady v. Kable, 993 F.3d 208 (2021)
could alter their behavior, avoid detection, and destroy evidence. J.A. 364–66. For example, if a terrorist group knew that some of its operatives were not in the TSDB, it could craft a plan sending those operatives through an airport or border while helping other members avoid detection. J.A. 339, 415–16. For similar reasons, the government will not publicly disclose how an individual came to be included. Doing so could alert terrorists to the tactics used by the government to detect them.
B.
Plaintiffs are twenty-three individuals who allege they are in the TSDB and have suffered various negative consequences as a result. They allege they are on the Selectee *216 List or Expanded Selectee List. The government has not confirmed whether the plaintiffs are actually in the TSDB. Because no plaintiff has been fully barred from flying, it is fair to assume that no plaintiff is on the No Fly List, and the plaintiffs do not allege they are on this list. For purposes of this case, we will assume that at least some of the plaintiffs are in the TSDB. They allege a variety of harms, with most occurring in airports or at the border.
In airports, some of the plaintiffs allege harms ranging from relatively mundane delays to major inconveniences and negative experiences. Hassan Shibly, for example, alleges he has routinely been pulled aside for enhanced screening at airports. J.A. 537–40, 543, 547–50. One time, when traveling with family, he was placed in handcuffs when detained for enhanced screening, causing his grandmother to become very upset. J.A. 537–38. Zuhair El-Schwehdi says he has also been repeatedly pulled aside for enhanced screenings, causing him to miss multiple connecting flights. J.A. 594–97. He alleges he now avoids flying whenever possible to avoid harassment. Every year, he and his family drive from Ohio to Atlanta, rather than flying. J.A. 595–96. He also claims enhanced screening caused him to miss his brother’s funeral in Libya. J.A. 599–600. The length of delays pleaded by plaintiffs due to these screenings varied substantially but was generally close to one hour.1 Many of the plaintiffs have also regularly traveled without any unusual delays or incidents.
At the borders, the experience of some plaintiffs has been similar. They allege delays and detentions ranging from a
5

few minutes to twelve hours, with most being on the shorter side of that range.2 A few of these detentions, however, involved what were alleged to be more extreme circumstances. When Anas Elhady tried to cross the border, he claims he was ordered out of his car, handcuffed, and placed in a very cold room without shoes or a jacket. He was interrogated for several hours about family and friends before eventually passing out from the cold. J.A. 495–97. Ahmad Halabi was arrested, placed in handcuffs, and detained for several hours in a cold room at the northern border. J.A. 522–23. Murat Frljuckic says he has been arrested at gunpoint repeatedly by CBP agents. J.A. 563–72. Yaseen Kadura’s phone was seized twice during border searches and FBI agents tried to convince him to work *217 for them. J.A. 514. Most plaintiffs have crossed the border or traveled internationally without unusual delays or incidents a fair percentage of the time.
The plaintiffs allege additional consequences attendant to TSDB status. First, they allege that inclusion disadvantages them and family members during visa applications, causing lengthy delays. Second, they allege it is harder for them to get employment with various government agencies and private entities working in national security areas, like the Department of State or nuclear power plants. Finally, plaintiffs allege it is harder for them to acquire various types of licenses and firearms because the FBI uses the TSDB in conducting background checks. The FBI imposes a mandatory three-day waiting period for individuals in the TSDB, and at least one state, New Jersey, bars TSDB individuals from buying guns. Eighteen plaintiffs filed DHS TRIP inquiries and received final responses from the government. Five plaintiffs did not file a DHS TRIP inquiry.3
As can be expected, the parties frame the facts differently. The plaintiffs describe a large number of alleged incidents, of which the above are but illustrative. The defendants argue we should focus on the typical experience of the plaintiffs, not on their more dramatic allegations. The fact is that plaintiffs have brought before the court a set of widely varying circumstances. This makes sense from their perspective because they seek a remedy that far transcends any individual plaintiff’s plight. But facial challenges have their drawbacks. See Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 450-51, 128 S.Ct. 1184, 170 L.Ed.2d 151 (2008) (explaining that “[f]acial challenges are disfavored” because they “often rest on speculation,”

Elhady v. Kable, 993 F.3d 208 (2021)
violate principles of “judicial restraint,” and “threaten to short circuit the democratic process” by empowering judges over the people’s representatives). By taking a roundhouse swing at the TSDB program, plaintiffs have raised the bar they must clear in order to prevail.
In fact, there are multiple reasons why we cannot accept plaintiffs’ invitation to have our decision turn on the most dramatic incidents to which they point. When considering a facial challenge such as this one, we note that programs can withstand such facial attacks whenever they are capable of constitutional applications. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987). Moreover, the Supreme Court has directed that the due process inquiry and mandated procedures must be directed at the “generality of cases, not the rare exceptions.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 344, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976); see also Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 677–78, 682, 97 S.Ct. 1401, 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977) (rejecting a due process claim brought by two students who were subject to severe corporal punishment at school). In short, the Supreme Court has recognized that facial challenges will often present, as here, a plethora of differing individual circumstances, and that adopting the most extreme allegations for a holding of facial invalidity would encourage facial attacks on all manner of programs and initiatives with all of their attendant anti-democratic consequences. Thus whether the inquiry is framed as looking to the average delay or whether the program is capable of constitutional applications, we are simply not permitted *218 by the Supreme Court to give dispositive weight to outlier experiences.
C.
The plaintiffs have brought suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief via substantive due process, equal protection, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and procedural due process claims. See Elhady v. Kable, 391 F. Supp. 3d 562 (E.D. Va. 2019). The district court dismissed the substantive due process and equal protection claims. Id. at 567. Equating the APA and procedural due process claims, which alleged that plaintiffs were not given notice of their TSDB status nor a meaningful opportunity to refute the information on which the status was based, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. Id. at 574.4 It
6

also rejected the government’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
The court found violations of plaintiffs’ protected liberty interests under the Due Process Clause on two theories. Id. at 577–80. First, it found the TSDB harmed plaintiffs’ “movement-related interests” by deterring their travel and by burdening their travel through extra screening and searches. Id. at 577. Second, it reasoned that the TSDB implicated plaintiffs’ reputational liberty interests under a “stigma-plus” theory. Id. at 579–80. According to the district court, the TSDB stigmatized plaintiffs by labeling them as known or suspected terrorists, and the government then disseminated that TSDB information in various ways. Id. That dissemination could be expected, it asserted, to affect an individual with respect to “traffic stops, field interviews, house visits, municipal permit processes, firearm purchases, certain licensing applications, and other scenarios.” Id. at 580.
Moving to the second stage of the procedural due process inquiry, the district court held that the existing DHS TRIP procedures did not satisfy due process. It reasoned that the risk of erroneous deprivation was high because individuals were not told whether they were in the TSDB or provided with the information upon which their status might be based; there was no independent review of TSDB status by a neutral decisionmaker; and the government’s standards for inclusion in the TSDB were vague. Id. at 580–82. The court acknowledged that the government had a compelling interest in preventing terrorist attacks and in maintaining secrecy over the underlying intelligence. It thus concluded that such interests precluded any claim to pre-deprivation notice. Id. at 583. But the court held plaintiffs were entitled to post-deprivation process and that the current DHS TRIP procedures were inadequate. Id. at 583–84.
Subsequently, the district court ordered the government to “promptly review the listing of any named Plaintiff currently listed in the TSDB according to additional procedures to be added to a revised DHS TRIP process,” to “disclose those revised procedures to the Court for its review as to their constitutional adequacy,” and to “disclose ... to the Court ... the status of the named Plaintiffs with respect to any TSDB listing after a review under those revised procedures.” J.A. 180–181. The district court also requested supplemental briefing on the proper remedy. It asked the parties to address whether the court should extend the procedures ordered in Latif v.

Elhady v. Kable, 993 F.3d 208 (2021)
Holder, where a district court *219 directed a comprehensive written explanation, subject to judicial review, of any decision to place an individual on the No Fly List. See 28 F. Supp.3d 1134, 1162 (D. Ore. 2014).
Before the district court could proceed to consider further remedial action, this court granted the government’s petition for permission to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
II.
We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs’ procedural due process claims. See Glynn v. EDO Corp., 710 F.3d 209, 213 (4th Cir. 2013). The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibits the government from taking an individual’s “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. These words mean that the government may not take certain actions without providing procedural protections meant to prevent erroneous decisions. See, e.g., Londoner v. Denver, 210 U.S. 373, 385-86, 28 S.Ct. 708, 52 L.Ed. 1103 (1908).
But not every government action creates a constitutional question over what procedures are required. The Supreme Court has explained that a procedural due process claim must demonstrate a substantial infringement of liberty or property in order to proceed. Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 570, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (“[T]he range of interests protected by procedural due process is not infinite.”). No process is due otherwise. Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219, 131 S.Ct. 859, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). In this case, plaintiffs allege violations of constitutionally protected liberty interests.
The Supreme Court has made clear that the range of constitutionally protected liberty interests is circumscribed. The interest must be “objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if it was sacrificed.” Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86, 94, 135 S.Ct. 2128, 192 L.Ed.2d 183 (2015) (plurality opinion) (quoting Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720–21, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997). History is the essential guidepost in this area. After all, the Due Process Clause has an ancient lineage,
7

descending from Magna Carta. Id. at 91, 135 S.Ct. 2128. Using history as its touchstone, the Supreme Court has explained that liberty encompasses “not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized ... as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” Roth, 408 U.S. at 572, 92 S.Ct. 2701 (quoting Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923)). But history works both ways. If there is a historical tradition of “denying the specific application” of a liberty right, the right “must give way.” Din, 576 U.S. at 95, 135 S.Ct. 2128.
A.
1.
Plaintiffs allege infringement of two liberty interests in this case. First the plaintiffs argue that inclusion in TSDB infringes their right to travel. This right’s lineage is ancient. Blackstone explained that Magna Carta guaranteed the “power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one’s person to whatsoever place *220 one’s own inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint.” 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England *134 (1769). And as American jurists have long recognized, the right to travel is protected by the Constitution because it is necessary to exercise other rights, including assembly, journeying to “the seat of government to assert any claim [one] may have upon that government,” or accessing the courts. Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 79, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1872) (quoting Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 35, 44, 18 L.Ed. 745 (1867)). The Slaughter-House cases located the right to travel in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause. The Supreme Court has subsequently relied on multiple provisions, including the Due Process Clause, as a source of this right. See, e.g., Cramer v. Skinner, 931 F.2d 1020, 1029-30 (5th Cir. 1991) (discussing the possible constitutional provisions that support this right’s existence).

Elhady v. Kable, 993 F.3d 208 (2021)

In examining the right, some precision is required. It is important to start by carefully framing plaintiffs’ asserted liberty interest. It cannot be framed too broadly because the Supreme Court requires a “careful description of the asserted fundamental liberty interest” when assessing whether a procedural due process right is implicated. Kerry, 576 U.S. at 93, 135 S.Ct. 2128 (quoting Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720–21, 117 S.Ct. 2258). Plaintiffs do not allege a per se ban on domestic or international travel. Nor can they, because plaintiffs are not on the No Fly List and have been able to routinely board planes and cross the border. Plaintiffs can only claim that they are subject to enhanced screening in airports before boarding flights, and that is the only real barrier to domestic travel imposed by their possible presence on the Selectee or Expanded Selectee lists. Aside from complaints about delays in airports, they do not allege any obstruction of their ability to travel domestically by means other than planes, like trains and automobiles. The screening burdens on international travel are similar, albeit enhanced by longer delays upon arriving back in the United States.
Moreover, history reveals that the government has long had the ability to impose some regulations and delays on travel by citizens, particularly international travel. Although Magna Carta recognized the right of “any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or water,” it qualified that right by making clear it must be done “according to the laws of the land.” Magna Carta ch. 42. That qualification clearly passed into American law. From the beginning of the nation, the government has regulated international travel, employing officers to enforce various rules at borders and ports of entry. See United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616-17, 97 S.Ct. 1972, 52 L.Ed.2d 617 (1977) (discussing how the first Congress passed a law granting officers broad powers to search ships and enforce customs laws); see also The Federalist No. 12, at 89 (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) (Alexander Hamilton) (discussing the need for the federal government to establish “rigorous precautions by which the European nations guard the avenues into their respective countries, as well by land as by water”). Even internally, the Constitution allowed for inspection laws that would place some burdens on domestic travel. See, e.g., Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 196-97, 6 L.Ed. 23 (1824) (discussing the power of Congress to license and regulate navigation in the nation’s internal waterways).
8

Security inspections and rules have thus burdened travelers from the beginning of the country. See The Federalist No. 12, *221 supra at 89 (Alexander Hamilton) (“A few armed vessels, judiciously stationed at the entrances of our ports, might at small expense be made useful sentinels of our laws.”). So too did quarantines imposed on travelers suspected of carrying infectious diseases. See, e.g., The Passenger Cases, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 283, 484, 12 L.Ed. 702 (1849) (Taney, C.J., dissenting) (“[I]f the ship comes from a port where a contagious disease is supposed to exist, she is always placed under quarantine, and subjected to the delay and expenses incident to that condition, and neither the crew nor cargo suffered to land until the State authorities are satisfied that it may be done without danger.”). The government has also regulated international travel through the issuance of passports, making them mandatory for certain periods as early as the War of 1812. See Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 293 n.22, 101 S.Ct. 2766, 69 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981) (discussing the history of passports and explaining that they were not always required in peacetime until 1978). And although air travel is a more recent phenomenon, the government has long regulated airport travel with security rules and requirements. See, e.g., Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672, 681-82, 112 S.Ct. 2701, 120 L.Ed.2d 541 (1992) (discussing the “security magnet” and use of restricted areas in airports).
What history suggests, precedent confirms: the right to travel is qualified, not absolute. Neither plaintiffs nor anyone else have a constitutionally protected interest in being able to travel domestically or internationally without incurring some burdens. See Agee, 453 U.S. at 305, 101 S.Ct. 2766 (“[T]he freedom to travel abroad ... is subject to reasonable governmental regulation.”); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969) (stating that the Constitution requires that “all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement.” (emphasis added)). The right to travel is not violated by “minor burdens,” Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 1999), or “[m]inor restrictions,” Cramer, 931 F.2d at 1031.
The experiences alleged by plaintiffs do not rise to the level of constitutional concern. Most plaintiffs complain of minor delays in airports of an hour or less. These

Elhady v. Kable, 993 F.3d 208 (2021)
burdens are not dissimilar from what many travelers routinely face, whether in standard or enhanced screenings, particularly at busy airports. After all, most travelers who face lengthier enhanced screenings are not in the TSDB but are instead chosen randomly. Plaintiffs cite a few instances where the delays took up to three hours, but those are atypical. Indeed, the record does not support plaintiffs’ assertions that they were all routinely subject to such enhanced scrutiny. Michael Coleman, for example, traveled five times by air domestically and four times internationally between September 2017 and February 2018, but he experienced problems on only three of those trips. J.A. 281. During the following year, Coleman experienced no delays on his five domestic and two international trips. J.A. 281. John Doe 2 never encountered enhanced screenings on more than twenty domestic flights between 2000 and 2018. J.A. 282. Anas Elhady took three roundtrip domestic flights between 2013 and 2018, experiencing delays on none of them. J.A. 284. Wael Hakmeh was subjected to secondary inspection on only two of ten international trips and enhanced screening on only one of five domestic flights. J.A. 287–288. Yasseen Kadura flew without incident on at least four domestic round-trip flights since 2016. J.A. 289. As for plaintiffs’ complaints that *222 airport security caused some missed flights, that misfortune is regrettably shared with many travelers not in the TSDB but selected for enhanced screening. In short, plaintiffs’ allegations boil down to an asserted constitutional right to convenient travel. But as any experienced airport traveler knows, that wish finds little support in reality.
Plaintiffs also argue that, aside from the objective burdens that TSDB status imposes on their right to travel, they have subjectively been deterred from traveling by the inconveniences and humiliations experienced in airports. See, e.g., J.A. 448, 456, 459. For example, plaintiff El-Schwehdi alleges that because enhanced screenings have caused him to miss multiple flights, he now drives from Ohio to Atlanta every year instead of flying in order to avoid harassment. See J.A. 457. Plaintiffs argue this evidence is enough to find that their right to travel has been infringed, relying on Justice Brennan’s plurality opinion in New York. v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898, 106 S.Ct. 2317, 90 L.Ed.2d 899 (1986), which stated that “[a] state law implicates the right to travel when it actually deters such travel.” Id. at 903, 106 S.Ct. 2317.
As an initial matter, we doubt that due process is implicated by mere subjective deterrence. We do not
9

understand the majority of the Supreme Court to have adopted anything like a subjective standard for measuring travel burdens. Lower courts have consistently declined to adopt plaintiffs’ interpretation, preferring an objective analysis over a subjective one. See, e.g., Pollack v. Duff, 793 F.3d 34, 45 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (remarking that if a law’s “effect upon [a plaintiff’s] willingness to travel, i.e., to exercise her right to travel, is negligible[,] [it] does not warrant scrutiny under the Constitution” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Torraco v. Port Auth. of New York and New Jersey, 615 F.3d 129, 141 (2d Cir. 2010) (“Assuming that the actions the defendants took did in fact deter these plaintiffs ... the most-inconvenienced plaintiff was delayed a little over one day. This was a minor restriction that did not result in a denial of the right to travel.”). This is consistent with the general preference of constitutional law for objective inquiries over subjective ones. See, e.g., Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813–14, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). Such objective inquiries spare courts the practical difficulties of assessing the sincerity and idiosyncrasies of individual litigants.
But even if we accepted plaintiffs’ assertions that these inconveniences have actually deterred them from flying, our analysis would stand firm. Many courts have held that individuals do not have a protected liberty interest to travel via a particular mode of transportation. See, e.g., Miller, 176 F.3d at 1205 (holding that “burdens on a single mode of transportation do not implicate the right to interstate travel”). Plaintiffs can travel domestically without interference by train or automobile. Plaintiffs can travel internationally by boat or by taking some later flight. No plaintiff alleges he is unable to get to a particular destination because of the TSDB. That is decisive. Although our law may guarantee the citizen’s right to travel, it is less attentive to how he gets there.
The Sixth and Tenth Circuits recognized this reality in finding no protected liberty interest in similar cases. In Beydoun v. Sessions, 871 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2017), the Sixth Circuit rejected a procedural due process claim by two U.S. citizens who alleged they were included on the Selectee List. Like the allegations here, the plaintiffs in Beydoun asserted that they missed many flights “after being subjected to lengthy secondary screenings,” citing “delays ranging from ten minutes to one hour *223 in duration,” and argued that they “had been deterred from flying on one occasion.” Id. at 467–68. In response, the court held that “[p]laintiffs did not allege that any

Elhady v. Kable, 993 F.3d 208 (2021)
protected interest was violated by the[ir] being on the Selectee List.” It acknowledged that “[p]laintiffs may have been inconvenienced by the extra security hurdles they endured in order to board an airplane,” but concluded that these burdens did not amount to a constitutional violation because “[p]laintiffs have not actually been prevented from flying altogether or from traveling by means other than an airplane.”
Similarly, in Abdi v. Wray, 942 F.3d 1019 (10th Cir. 2019), the Tenth Circuit held that a U.S. citizen’s procedural due process challenge to his inclusion on the Selectee List failed because he lacked a constitutional liberty interest in traveling without being subject to delays. The plaintiff alleged he had been “subject to extended security screenings each time he travel[ed] by air,” “secondary inspections, questioning, and prolonged searches of his person and luggage,” and having “TSA agents shut down an entire screening line and requir[ing him] to proceed through the line by himself.” Id. at 1023. The plaintiff presented one delay of “about a half hour” and another of 48 hours. Id. at 1023–26. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument because “the burdens and delays alleged by [the plaintiff did] not substantially interfere with his travel rights.” Id. at 1030. The plaintiff’s “placement on the Selectee List affect[ed] only one mode of transportation throughout the country” and his longest asserted delay was “for just two days,” which was “commensurate” with those in other cases where courts had rejected similar challenges. Id. at 1030–31. In summary, the court concluded that “[d]elays of a few hours are not uncommon for many air travelers and do not amount to a substantial interference with the rights to travel interstate or internationally.” Id at 1031.
Beydoun and Abdi provide persuasive guidance on the resolution of this case. Both courts recognized the analysis should focus on the average delay caused by enhanced screening instead of focusing on outliers, like the two-day delay in Abdi. 942 F.3d at 1032. Here, the typical delay pleaded by plaintiffs is around an hour or less. And as Beydoun observed, TSDB status affects only air travel, leaving alternative modes of travel like automobiles and trains available. 871 F.3d at 468. We find the reasoning in these cases to be sound and thus again decline plaintiffs’ invitation to create a circuit split.
2.
10

History and practical reality reveal that plaintiffs’ claims with respect to additional screenings when crossing national borders are even less persuasive. As with the experiences faced in airports, secondary inspection at the border has not prevented plaintiffs from entering or exiting the United States. Rather, plaintiffs contend that when crossing the border at a port of entry, they are referred for secondary inspection during which they are questioned, their person and property are searched, and they are subject to delays ranging from a few minutes to twelve hours, with the typical one being a couple of hours.
As discussed above, there is a long history of the government having the ability to exercise substantial power at the nation’s borders. “Since the founding of our Republic, Congress has granted the Executive plenary authority to conduct routine searches and seizures at the border, without probable cause or a warrant, in order to regulate the collection of duties and to prevent the introduction of contraband into *224 this country.” United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 537, 105 S.Ct. 3304, 87 L.Ed.2d 381 (1985). Indeed, the first Congress passed a bill to this effect. Act of July 31, 1789, ch. 5, 1 Stat. 29; see also Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886) (discussing the bill). Initially, the international border of greatest concern was the Atlantic coast, by which Europeans could enter the country via ship. See Federalist No. 12, supra, at 89 (Alexander Hamilton) (discussing the need “to guard [ ] the Atlantic Coast”). Over time, the task of guarding the northern and southern land borders emerged as the greater challenge. Since the start of the twentieth century, the government has operated checkpoints at which individuals crossing those borders must stop. See Border Patrol History, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (last visited Feb. 24, 2021) (describing placement of officers at the southern border around 1904 to prevent illegal crossings), https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders/his tory. Delays and inconveniences at the borders are thus as old as the nation itself.
And again, precedent reinforces that history. The Supreme Court has made clear that the government has broad power to search and seize individuals at the border. Because the “Government’s interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border,” searches and seizures there “are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at

Elhady v. Kable, 993 F.3d 208 (2021)
the border.” United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 152–53, 124 S.Ct. 1582, 158 L.Ed.2d 311 (2004). The Court also rejected any “right not to be subject to delay at the international border” because “delays of one to two hours at international borders are to be expected.” Id. at 155 n. 3, 124 S.Ct. 1582. Indeed, the Supreme Court upheld a sixteen-hour detention at the border where officers did not communicate with the detainee during that time. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. at 537–38, 105 S.Ct. 3304; see also Tabbaa v. Chertoff, 509 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2007) (rejecting claim against CBP by five U.S. citizens who were detained when returning from Canada for several hours and subject to intrusive questions).
In light of such history and precedent, it is clear that plaintiffs do not possess a protected liberty interest in being free from screening and delays at the border. No plaintiff alleges he was unable to cross an international border. The plaintiffs complain of extra delays ranging from a few minutes to twelve hours, with most being on the shorter end of that spectrum. Such delays are not atypical for travelers, particularly at busy ports of entry at land borders. Given the government’s broad power to control movement across the nation’s borders, the burdens experienced by plaintiffs are not infringements of “liberty” within the meaning of the Due Process Clause.

definition impatient ones, not well suited to the multiple layers of sensitivity that surround this case. Plaintiffs come before us with wildly varying circumstances and ask for a common remedy. A couple of plaintiffs state they experienced extreme encounters with law enforcement. See, e.g., J.A. 564–72 (allegation by Murat Frljuckic that he was repeatedly arrested at gunpoint); J.A. 495–97 (allegation by Anas Elhady that he was detained in a freezing room for twelve hours until he passed out). Others allege only de minimis delays in international and domestic travel. See, e.g., J.A. 82-83 (failing in complaint to identify any delays for plaintiff Baby Doe 2); J.A. 114–16 (failing to detail specific delays for plaintiff Samir Anwar). Although plaintiffs suggest that extreme encounters are the inevitable consequence of the TSDB system, that argument is belied by the fact that most of the plaintiffs did not experience anything particularly dramatic. When considering this type of broad procedural due process claim, we are required, as noted, to focus on the “generality of cases, not the rare exceptions.” Mathews 424 U.S. at 344, 96 S.Ct. 893. A few nonrepresentative encounters, plucked in isolation from millions of encounters occurring each year, are hardly a sound basis for redesigning the entire TSDB system. When aiming at a small and sensitive target, a scalpel is superior to a scythe. Or if scythe there should be, Congress in this area is best qualified to wield it.

3.
Our opinion, however, should not be read to suggest that law enforcement actions in airports or at the border are immune from judicial review. Litigants can proceed through other avenues, including Fourth Amendment claims. The Fourth Amendment exists to protect against unreasonable searches and seizures, including unreasonable uses of force by law enforcement. See, e.g., Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) (recognizing Fourth Amendment claim for excessive use of force by law enforcement). One great advantage of requiring litigants to proceed that way is that courts will be able to conduct the kind of individualized case-by-case analyses that *225 are precluded in a facial due process challenge.
Incrementalism and individualization are important to the common-law method. These qualities describe as well the development of “reasonableness” jurisprudence under the Fourth Amendment. Facial challenges are by contrast and
11

B.
Plaintiffs also allege in this appeal that inclusion in the TSDB infringes their constitutionally protected interest in their reputations. The Supreme Court has acknowledged a constitutional liberty interest in one’s reputation. See Din, 576 U.S. at 91-92, 135 S.Ct. 2128; see also 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England *129 (1769) (explaining how due process protects an interest in “personal security,” which includes one’s “reputation”). But recognizing the potentially boundless nature of this right, the Court has established doctrinal limits to narrow the category of cases claiming reputational injury. A litigant must show a statement “stigmatizing his good name” and damaging his standing in the community; (2) some type of dissemination or publication of the statement; and (3) some other government action that “alter[s] or extinguishe[s] one of his legal rights.” Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 706–711, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976).

Elhady v. Kable, 993 F.3d 208 (2021)
The plaintiffs’ basic contention is that inclusion in the TSDB stigmatizes them by associating them with terrorism. We reject this argument for two reasons. First, plaintiffs’ claims fall short because they have not shown adequate “public disclosure” by the government. Sciolino v. City of Newport News, 480 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 2007). The government does not publicly disclose TSDB status. The federal government’s intragovernmental dissemination of TSDB information to other federal agencies and components, to be used for federal law enforcement purposes, is not “public disclosure” for purposes of a stigma-plus claim. See Asbill v. Housing Auth. of Choctaw Nation, 726 F.2d 1499, 1503 (10th Cir. 1984). That comports with common sense; government could not function if every intra- or inter-departmental memo critical of a person created a constitutional claim. The same rationale explains why *226 disclosure to state or tribal law enforcement agencies does not constitute public disclosure.
The question remains whether the government’s decision to allow certain private entities to access the TSDB constitutes publication. In Sciolino, we recognized that making stigmatizing information available to prospective employers could, in some circumstances, constitute publication. 480 F.3d at 649–50. However, we made clear that plaintiffs must plead more than the simple act of making derogatory information available; they must prove that information is “likely to be inspected by prospective employers.” Id. at 649. On this record, we cannot say plaintiffs have met that burden. After full discovery, the plaintiffs still allege only that the government makes this information available. J.A. 478-79 (plaintiffs’ memorandum in support of motion for summary judgment). They do not point to specific instances where private employers looked at this evidence or made employment decisions based upon it. Moreover, Sciolino dealt with the dissemination of information that could be available to a wide range of employers. Id. at 650 (noting that plaintiffs can satisfy their burden of proof by showing that the government “has a practice of releasing [the damaging information] to all inquiring employers”). Here, in contrast, TSDB status is made available only to a select number of private companies that work closely with issues related to national security, like nuclear power and chemical plants. Under these circumstances and based on this record, we do not think the government has publicly disseminated the plaintiffs’ TSDB statuses in a manner sufficient to constitute an injury of constitutional
12

proportion.
Plaintiffs’ argument fails for another reason. The Supreme Court has explained that stigma or “reputation alone, apart from some more tangible interests such as employment,” is not “liberty” within the meaning of the Due Process Clause. Davis, 424 U.S. at 701, 96 S.Ct. 1155. In Davis, the Court found no protected liberty interest when state officials falsely included Davis’s name on a list of shoplifters circulated to over eight hundred local businesses. Id. at 695–96, 96 S.Ct. 1155. If that action—which undoubtedly humiliated Davis in the community and caused negative consequences at work, id. at 696, 96 S.Ct. 1155—did not constitute an infringement of reputational liberty under the Due Process Clause, it is hard to see how we can recognize plaintiffs’ alleged reputational injuries in this case.
Davis makes clear that it is not enough that a disclosure of negative information might make people think badly of you. “A plaintiff must demonstrate that his reputational injury was accompanied by a state action that distinctly altered or extinguished his legal status.” Shirvinski v. Coast Guard, 673 F.3d 308, 315 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). For example, it is not enough if the government defames one of its employees; that employee can only allege infringement of a reputational liberty interest if the government subsequently terminates his employment because of that defamation. See Davis, 424 U.S. at 706, 96 S.Ct. 1155. Lower courts call this a “stigma-plus” showing.
Plaintiffs cannot make this “plus” showing because they have not demonstrated that TSDB status has altered their legal status or extinguished rights. First, they argue that the burdens imposed by TSDB status on their right to travel constitutes a “plus” showing. But as explained above, plaintiffs do not have a legal right to travel without delays and inconveniences. Their right to travel interstate or internationally has not been extinguished, *227 which is partly why the court in Beydoun rejected a similar claim of stigma-plus injury. 871 F.3d at 469 (stating that “because Plaintiffs could still fly, after passing enhanced screening and experiencing delays, they were not deprived of any previously held rights” and thus could not establish “the ‘plus’ part” of their claims).
The district court concluded that plaintiffs demonstrated a “plus” injury because inclusion on the TSDB could affect plaintiffs “in traffic stops, field interviews, house visits,

Elhady v. Kable, 993 F.3d 208 (2021)
municipal permit processes, firearm purchases, certain licensing applications, and other scenarios.” Elhady, 391 F. Supp. 3d at 580. The district court erred, however, in concluding that this is an adequate “plus” injury.
The Tenth Circuit rejected a nearly identical argument in Abdi, where the plaintiff argued that his inclusion on the Selectee List could potentially prevent him from accessing the financial system, opening or maintaining bank accounts, making wire transfers, sponsoring his immediate relatives’ permanent residency, entering foreign nations, purchasing guns, obtaining a commercial driver’s license to transport hazardous materials, working for an airport or airline, or obtaining an FAA license. Abdi, 942 F.3d at 1033. Abdi rejected this argument for two reasons. First, the plaintiff had not actually alleged full denials of those rights and privileges. Id. at 1033-34. Second, and more importantly, the court rejected the argument because the government’s act of including names in the TSDB does not mandate that private entities deny people such privileges. Id. at 1034. It merely makes information available to private entities, like companies handling nuclear power, and then those companies make their own choices. As Abdi explained, the plaintiff alleged only that “the government disseminates the watchlist ‘with the purpose and hope’ ” that recipients “ ‘will impose consequences on those individuals,’ ” but such “ ‘purpose and hope’ is not a mandate” that constitutes the alteration of a legal right or status for purposes of a stigma-plus claim. Id.
So too here. The plaintiffs have not actually alleged an inability to gain employment, obtain permits or licenses, or acquire firearms. One plaintiff claims he lost his job, but the record does not allow us to conclude this was because of TSDB status as opposed to other reasons. In a deposition, that plaintiff admitted he was not terminated because of any watch list status, but because he “and the manager didn’t get along.” J.A. 407–08. Another alleges he could not get a job as a police officer in one city because of TSDB status, but his sole basis for that belief is that some friends who applied got interviews while he did not. J.A. 500–01. Plaintiffs also cite delays and a reduced likelihood of obtaining various kinds of licenses and permits. For example, one plaintiff alleged a delay in getting a concealed carry permit due to TSDB status, though he admitted he had no “obstacles or problems” in acquiring his three firearms. J.A. 551. This isolated wait, which could have occurred for a whole host of reasons, does not lead us to conclude that TSDB status results in
13

the termination of one’s Second Amendment rights.5 In short, plaintiffs have not adequately demonstrated denials of employment, permits, licenses, or firearms. *228 Speculation coupled with a few isolated incidents inadequately tethered to TSDB status is not enough. The district court acknowledged the weakness of plaintiffs’ evidence on this score, Elhady, 391 F. Supp. 3d at 580, and we concur with its assessment.
C.
Because we conclude that plaintiffs have not demonstrated infringements of constitutional liberty interests under the Due Process Clause, we need not address plaintiffs’ claims as to the adequacy of existing processes. But in all events it remains unclear that additional DHS TRIP procedures may be judicially mandated. Whether the process afforded is constitutionally adequate depends on balancing (1) “the private interest that will be affected by the official action,” (2) “the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards,” and (3) “the Government’s interest, including the ... fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335, 96 S.Ct. 893.
Several factors make us doubt the merits of plaintiffs’ arguments under this framework. First, the government’s interest is extraordinarily significant in this case. “[T]he Government’s interest in combating terrorism is an urgent objective of the highest order.” Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 28, 130 S.Ct. 2705, 177 L.Ed.2d 355 (2010). The government claims that the TSDB is at the core of its counterterrorism apparatus and that burdening it with more procedures would markedly increase the risk of terrorist incidents. See, e.g., J.A. 321 (“The TSDB is key to TSA’s ability to counter ongoing terrorist threats.”); J.A. 362 (“The TSDB plays a critical role in the FBI’s mission by enabling the FBI and its partners to share relevant information necessary to carry out their respective missions in a concerted effort to prevent terrorist attacks.”).
Of course, courts must not uncritically defer to such national security claims. Otherwise, national security will become a talisman summoned by the government to avoid

Elhady v. Kable, 993 F.3d 208 (2021)
scrutiny of infringements of constitutional rights. Thus our analysis would in no sense preclude those cases in which national security justifications were being used in an improper or pretextual manner. The very breadth of the term “national security” can make it an unduly tempting explanation for dubious actions that have little or no connection to national security at all. But neither may we reflexively disregard the Executive Branch’s judgments in the national security area. As the Supreme Court has noted, the Executive Branch’s “evaluation of the facts [in national security contexts] is entitled to deference.” Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. at 33, 130 S.Ct. 2705. Courts lack the expertise and competence to second-guess decisions made about national security needs. After all, “federal judges [do not] begin the day with briefings that may describe new and serious threats to our Nation and its people.” Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 797, 128 S.Ct. 2229, 171 L.Ed.2d 41 (2008).
Second, the weight of the private interests at stake is comparatively weak. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 124 S.Ct. 2633, 159 L.Ed.2d 578 (2004), the Supreme Court applied the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test and held that procedural due process required the government to give limited hearings to indefinitely detained U.S. citizens who were accused of being enemy combatants in the war on terror. Id. at 538–39, 124 S.Ct. 2633. In part, the Court expressed concern about the risk of erroneous determinations that *229 individuals were enemy combatants, describing that risk as “unacceptably high.” Id. at 533, 124 S.Ct. 2633. But the decision hinged largely on the weight of Hamdi’s private interest, which the Court described as “the most elemental of liberty interests—the interest in being free from physical detention by one’s own government.” Id. at 530, 124 S.Ct. 2633. Even under those circumstances, the Court acknowledged that proceedings to determine enemy combatant status may be tailored to accommodate the government’s interests; it approved, for example, the use of hearsay evidence and a presumption in favor of the government’s evidence. Id. at 533–34, 124 S.Ct. 2633. When compared to the prospect of indefinite detention as an enemy combatant, plaintiffs’ complaints about delays in airports and in border crossings seem relatively minor.
Third, we would not casually second-guess Congress’s specific judgment as to how much procedure was needed in this context. See Walters v. Nat’l Ass’n of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305, 319–20, 105 S.Ct. 3180, 87 L.Ed.2d 220 (1985) (underscoring the “deference [courts]
14

customarily must pay to the duly enacted and carefully considered decision of a coequal and representative branch of our Government” because “legislatures are to be allowed considerable leeway to formulate such processes without being forced to conform to a rigid constitutional code of procedural necessities”); see id. at 326, 105 S.Ct. 3180. After the TSDB was created, Congress considered the proper balance between effective counterterrorism efforts and the desire of air travelers to fly without undue burdens. It accommodated those competing interests by mandating the creation of DHS TRIP, a system that ensures that TSDB determinations are checked and reviewed. Congress recognized that the government’s assessments in this area may not be foolproof. It nonetheless did not require the DHS TRIP redress process to eliminate all possibility of error, but only to reasonably mitigate the risk of possible errors. 49 U.S.C. § 44903(j)(2)(C)(iii)(II) (requiring TSA to “ensure that Federal Government databases that will be used to establish the identity of a passenger under the system will not produce a large number of false positives”) (emphasis added); see also id. § 44926(b)(3)(B) (“reduce the number of false positives”) (emphasis added). Congress made a policy choice, balancing the burdens imposed on the victims of false positives with the costs imposed on the entire country when a terrorist attack occurs. When such competing interests are at stake, value judgments must be made. Striking the balance in this most sensitive of areas belongs principally with the people’s representatives.
* * *
History and precedent reveal that the government possesses latitude in regulating travel, guarding the nation’s borders, and protecting the aspirations of the populace for tranquility and safety. For “[u]nless a society has the capability and will to defend itself from the aggressions of others, constitutional protections of any sort have little meaning.” Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 612, 105 S.Ct. 1524, 84 L.Ed.2d 547 (1985). We have such imperfect comprehension of the consequences of our interventions as to raise the prospect here of doing far more harm than good. Given the nation’s need for unrelaxed vigilance against catastrophic threats, we can say with confidence only that the TSDB program matters and that it conforms to long-settled propositions of law. But saying that should be enough. Plaintiffs’ procedural due process claims fail for the reasons set forth above. We thus reverse the district

Elhady v. Kable, 993 F.3d 208 (2021)

court’s denial of *230 the government’s motion for summary judgment and remand this case with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the government.

All Citations 993 F.3d 208

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Footnotes

1

The delays alleged by plaintiffs were: Ahmad Al Halabi (30 to 45 minutes), J.A. 276–77, Samir Anwar (15 minutes),

J.A. 279, Michael Coleman (30-60 minutes), J.A. 281, Anas Elhady (1 hour), J.A. 284, Zuhair El-Shwehdi (30 to 45

minutes at check-in, 20 to 30 minutes security screening), J.A. 285, Hassan Fares (10 minutes), J.A. 286, Hassan

Shibly (15 to 20 minutes, 45 minutes at the longest), J.A. 291, Muhammad Khan (30 minutes to 3 hours, returning on

international trip), J.A. 289, and Donald Thomas (1 to 2 hours), J.A. 291.

2

The delays alleged by plaintiffs at land borders or upon return from foreign countries in airports were: Saleem Ali

(30 to 45 minutes, 3 hours, and 6 hours), J.A. 277, Ibrahim Awad (15 minutes on one occasion, less than 1 hour on

several others), J.A. 280, John Doe 4 (30 minute delay when departing, but no delay when returning), J.A. 283, Anas

Elhady (30 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours, 4 hours, 12 hours), J.A. 284, Hassan Fares (10 to 15 minutes, 1-2 hours), J.A.

286, Hassan Shibly (15 to 30 minutes, 2 hours, 6 hours), J.A. 291, Ahmad Al Halabi (4 to 5 hours), J.A. 276–77, Samir

Anwar (3.5 hours), J.A. 279, Shahir Anwar (2 to 3 hours), J.A. 279-80, Michael Coleman (1-2 hours), J.A. 281-82, John

Doe 2 (1-3 hours), J.A. 282–83, John Doe 3 (5.5 hours), J.A. 282–83, Ausama Elhuzayel (3 hours), J.A. 285, Zuhair

El-Shwehdi (usually 2 hours, once 6 hours), J.A. 285 Murat Frljuckic (3.5 to 4 hours and 6 hours), J.A. 287, Wael

Hakmeh (1 to 2 hours), J.A. 287–88, Adnan Khalil Shaout (30 minutes to 3 hours), J.A. 290, and Yaseen Kadura (1

hour, 7 to 8 hours), J.A. 288.

3

Because we conclude that judgment should be entered in favor of the government on a basis that covers all

plaintiffs, we do not reach the government’s argument that plaintiffs were required to exhaust their DHS TRIP

remedy before suing.

4

The APA claims are given almost no discussion by the parties on appeal, following the lead of the district court in

conflating the due process and APA claims and assuming that the APA claims rose or fell with the due process

contentions. For the purpose of this appeal, we will follow the lead of the parties and district court as well.

5

As for alleged delays in obtaining visas and other immigration privileges, there is no legal injury because there is no

legal right to speedy grants of such privileges. See, e.g., Ruiz-Diaz v. United States, 703 F.3d 483, 487–88 (9th Cir.

2012). If alleged governmental delays in processing the multitude of applications received created constitutional

questions, the federal courts would never see an end to such cases.

15