Introduction

The cases of Nasser Beydoun and Maan Bazzi represent significant challenges against the federal government's use of the "Selectee List," a subset of the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB). Both plaintiffs, U.S. citizens, alleged that their inclusion on this list subjected them to enhanced airport screenings without adequate procedural safeguards, thereby violating their Fifth Amendment rights to due process. The cases culminated in a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on September 12, 2017, affirming the district court's dismissal of their complaints.

Summary of the Judgment

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the appeals filed by Beydoun and Bazzi, who sought declaratory and injunctive relief to be removed from the Selectee List. The district courts in both cases had dismissed the complaints, determining that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a violation of their Fifth Amendment rights. Upon appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed these dismissals, concluding that the plaintiffs' allegations of excessive delays and additional screenings did not amount to a substantive infringement of their fundamental rights protected under due process.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced prior cases to contextualize its findings:

• Mokdad v. Lynch (6th Cir. 2015): Established that inclusion on federal watch lists without sufficient procedural safeguards could potentially violate due process.
• DUNN v. BLUMSTEIN (1972): Affirmed the fundamental right to travel within the United States.
• ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL (1978): Clarified that only significant interference with fundamental rights invokes constitutional protections.
• Doe v. Michigan Department of State Police (6th Cir. 2007): Defined the criteria for reputational harm claims under due process.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on evaluating whether the plaintiffs had sufficiently demonstrated that their inclusion on the Selectee List constituted a violation of their fundamental rights.

• Right to Travel: While acknowledging the constitutional protection of the right to travel, the court determined that the plaintiffs' experiences of delays and additional screenings did not rise to the level of significant interference required to breach due process protections.
• Reputational Harm: The court found that while the plaintiffs alleged reputational harm, they failed to prove that this harm translated into a deprivation of a legally protected right.
• Administrative Procedure Act (APA) Claims: The plaintiffs' APA claims were intertwined with their due process allegations. However, the court noted that without substantial claims of rights violations, the APA claims were insufficient to warrant relief.
• Amendment of Complaints: The plaintiffs sought to amend their complaints to include additional allegations. The court denied this request, citing the lack of substantive grounds in the proposed amendments.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the government's authority to implement enhanced security measures at airports without constituting a due process violation, provided that the measures do not amount to a significant deprivation of fundamental rights. It sets a precedent that minor delays and additional screenings, common in heightened security contexts, are not sufficient to challenge such governmental actions under the Fifth Amendment.

Moreover, the affirmation underscores the stringent standards required for plaintiffs to prove substantive due process violations, particularly in the realm of national security and administrative procedures.

Complex Concepts Simplified

5th Amendment Due Process

The Fifth Amendment guarantees that the government cannot deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. In these cases, the plaintiffs argued that being placed on the Selectee List without adequate notice or a fair hearing violated their due process rights.

Selectee List and Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB)

The Selectee List is a subset of the TSDB, maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC). Individuals on this list are subject to enhanced security screening at airports due to potential security threats.

Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

The APA governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations. It includes provisions for judicial review of agency actions. The plaintiffs claimed that the procedures for redress under DHS TRIP were inadequate under the APA.

Substantive vs. Procedural Due Process

Substantive Due Process protects certain fundamental rights from government interference, regardless of the procedures used to carry out that interference.

Procedural Due Process ensures that the government follows fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property.

Conclusion

The affirmation of the district court's dismissal in Beydoun & Bazzi v. U.S. Attorney General underscores the judiciary's deference to federal security measures that do not egregiously infringe upon constitutional rights. While the plaintiffs raised concerns about potential due process violations due to their inclusion on the Selectee List, the courts determined that the inconveniences they faced were incidental and did not amount to a fundamental rights infringement. This decision delineates the boundaries of constitutional protections in the context of national security, signaling that routine security protocols, even if burdensome, may not necessarily violate due process as long as they do not deprive individuals of significant liberties.