Saad bin Khalid, a U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent, was first subjected to enhanced screening in 2012 when he was 16 or 17 years old and sought to board a flight from Pakistan to the United States. FBI agents questioned him about his activities and contacts in Pakistan after that flight. In 2019, when Khalid again tried to fly from Pakistan to the United States, he was prohibited from boarding and told he could file a redress claim through the Department of Homeland Security Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP). Through that process, TSA informed him that he was considered 'an individual who represents a threat of engaging in or conducting a violent act of terrorism and [is] operationally capable of doing so,' citing concerns about his 'association with a known terrorist organization' and his 'candor' during the 2012 FBI interview.
After Khalid responded through counsel, denying any terrorist associations and maintaining his truthfulness during the FBI interview, TSA Administrator David P. Pekoske issued a final order in June 2022 determining that Khalid was 'properly included on the U.S. Government's No Fly List' based on 'the totality of available information.' As Judge Pillard noted, the Administrator's decision relied heavily on classified evidence: 'The Administrator's factfinding and analysis closely tracked the Center's recommendation' from the Threat Screening Center, a multi-agency body that maintains the terrorist watchlist.
The court delivered its sharpest language when dismissing Khalid's Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim, finding he lacked standing to challenge the impact on his ability to perform Hajj pilgrimage. 'Khalid thus has not shown that he faces an 'actual or imminent' injury related to his religious exercise,' Judge Pillard wrote, noting that he 'currently resides in Pakistan' and 'asserts his RFRA claim without any description of concrete plans to travel to Saudi Arabia via U.S. airspace.'
The case reached the D.C. Circuit after a district court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and transferred Khalid's No Fly List claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Khalid had initially filed suit while awaiting his DHS TRIP response, raising constitutional and statutory challenges to both his placement on the list and the adequacy of the redress process. The government moved to dismiss his claims, leading to the jurisdictional ruling that sent the case to the appellate court.
Khalid's strongest arguments centered on procedural due process, but the court rejected them based on precedent from Busic v. Transportation Security Administration, which held that DHS TRIP provides constitutionally adequate process. Judge Pillard explained that while Khalid has 'significant private interest at stake when the government denies access to air travel,' the balance tips in favor of national security: 'Given that other modes of travel remain available to Khalid, the government's national security interest in restricting access to U.S. airspace outweighs [his] individual travel preferences.' The court also dismissed his reputational injury claim, noting that 'injury to reputation by itself [is] not a liberty interest protected under the Fourteenth Amendment.'
The unanimous decision reflects the D.C. Circuit's consistent deference to national security determinations, with Judge Pillard emphasizing that 'courts have limited competence in the area of national security' and their 'role in reviewing factual determinations in this context is highly deferential.' The court reviewed classified portions of the administrative record ex parte, concluding after in-camera review that the TSA Administrator's decision was supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary and capricious.
The ruling represents another victory for the government's post-9/11 aviation security apparatus, demonstrating the high bar challengers face when contesting No Fly List placements. For practitioners in national security law, the decision reinforces that even U.S. citizens with strong procedural due process arguments will struggle to overcome the substantial deference courts give to terrorism-related determinations, particularly when classified evidence supports the government's position.