Long v. Bondi: Watchlist-Driven Credential Denials Confer Standing and § 46110 Does Not Bar District-Court Review Once TSA Orders Are Superseded

Introduction

The Fourth Circuit’s published decision in Saadiq Long v. Pamela Bondi, Nos. 24-1369 & 24-1403 (4th Cir. Aug. 14, 2025), is the court’s latest—and most detailed—exposition on litigation arising from the federal Terrorist Screening Dataset (TSDS), commonly called the Terrorist Watchlist, and its No Fly List subset. Judge Rushing authored the majority opinion (joined by Judge Benjamin); Judge Gregory concurred in part and dissented in part. The decision:

• Applies the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in FBI v. Fikre, holding that a plaintiff’s removal from the No Fly List does not automatically moot constitutional challenges to the original placement;
• Clarifies that 49 U.S.C. § 46110’s direct-review channel to the courts of appeals does not strip district courts of jurisdiction over challenges to Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) actions once the relevant Transportation Security Administration (TSA) administrative order has been superseded;
• Establishes that the denial (or effective denial) of TSA transportation credentials—specifically, a Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) and a Hazardous Materials Endorsement (HME)—is a concrete injury-in-fact traceable to Watchlist placement, thereby supplying Article III standing for watchlist-related claims; and
• Reinforces the limited scope of “public disclosure” privacy injuries, rejecting Long’s additional standing theories based on intra-governmental dissemination of watchlist status through the NCIC database.

Because the panel vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded for merits consideration, the opinion also sketches important procedural guidance for future watchlist litigation, including how courts must parse overlapping claims against multiple federal agencies.

Summary of the Judgment

The district court (E.D. Va.) had dismissed all of Saadiq Long’s claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, primarily on mootness (No Fly claims) and standing (Watchlist claims) grounds. The Fourth Circuit:

1. Vacated the district court’s finding that Long’s No Fly claims were moot. Applying Fikre, the panel held that the government’s declaration promising not to re-list Long “based on currently available information” did not eliminate a reasonable expectation of future, potentially unlawful, re-listing.
2. Held that § 46110 did not preclude district-court jurisdiction over those No Fly claims because the TSA Administrator’s 2019 final order had been superseded by TSC’s later action removing Long from the list. The court left open whether any remaining challenges to the DHS TRIP process must still be transferred under § 46110.
3. Recognized standing for Long’s broader Watchlist claims based on TSA’s effective denial of his TWIC and HME applications—injuries that are concrete, fairly traceable to watchlist status (in light of 49 C.F.R. § 1572.107) and redressable by injunctive relief.
4. Rejected Long’s other standing theories (police stops, denied firearm sale, NCIC dissemination as “public disclosure”) as either speculative or not causally connected to watchlist placement.
5. Remanded for the district court to (a) adjudicate No Fly claims on the merits and (b) reach the government’s pending Rule 12(b)(6) motion on the Watchlist and APA counts.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• FBI v. Fikre, 144 S. Ct. 771 (2024) – Core authority that mere removal from the No Fly List does not moot constitutional challenges without a comprehensive disavowal by the government.
• Elhady v. Kable, 993 F.3d 208 (4th Cir. 2021) – Earlier Fourth Circuit watchlist case rejecting certain privacy and liberty theories; invoked to limit Long’s “public disclosure” argument.
• Blitz v. Napolitano, 700 F.3d 733 (4th Cir. 2012) – Foundational § 46110 precedent; distinguished because here the TSA order had lost legal effect.
• Mokdad v. Lynch, 804 F.3d 807 (6th Cir. 2015); Kashem v. Barr, 941 F.3d 358 (9th Cir. 2019) – Comparative circuits on TRIP challenges and § 46110; helped the panel delineate which claims belong in district court.
• Moharam v. TSA, 134 F.4th 598 (D.C. Cir. 2025) – Clarified that TSC removal supersedes TSA orders; used here to show why Long’s case differs from § 46110-exclusive proceedings.
• TransUnion LLC v. Ramírez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) – Guided standing analysis on intangible privacy harms and “close historical analogue”.
• Traditional standing trinity: Lujan, Spokeo, Murthy v. Missouri (2024).

Legal Reasoning

1. Mootness & Voluntary Cessation – Following Fikre, the panel found the government’s statement too narrow; it did not foreclose future No Fly placement for impermissible reasons (e.g., religion).
2. § 46110 Channeling –
   • Only “orders of the TSA Administrator” are channeled.
   • The April 2019 DHS TRIP decision was such an order, but it was later superseded by TSC’s administrative removal; consequently, there is no extant TSA order for the court to “affirm, amend, or set aside.”
   • Challenges to TSC’s listing, as an FBI component, are not covered by § 46110.
3. Standing –
   • Injury-in-Fact: Delay/denial of TWIC & HME economically harms Long; letters citing 49 C.F.R. § 1572.107(a) connect watchlist status to credential denial.
   • Traceability: Even if TSA looks beyond mere status, watchlist placement is the factual predicate that triggers the “security threat” conclusion.
   • Redressability: Removing Long from the Watchlist would remove the barrier; residual administrative discretion does not defeat redressability.
   • Rejected Injuries: Stipulated end to police stops erased imminence; firearm denial not linked to watchlist; NCIC dissemination is not “public disclosure” analogized to defamation.
4. Scope of Remand – District court must:
   • Determine whether any TRIP-process challenges must be transferred under § 46110;
   • Rule on Rule 12(b)(6) merits issues for surviving counts;
   • Address Count IV (NCIC statutory claim) in light of narrowed standing holding.

Impact on Future Litigation & Administrative Practice

• Litigants’ Playbook – Plaintiffs can maintain No Fly claims post-removal unless the government unequivocally rules out future re-listing.
• Standing Doorway – Economic harms (loss of professional credentials, licenses, clearances) tied to watchlist status now serve as a viable Article III foot-in-the-door in the Fourth Circuit.
• Agency Coordination – TSA and TSC must expect that superseding actions will shift jurisdiction back to district courts, potentially inviting broader discovery.
• § 46110 Clarification – Decision limits government’s frequent argument that any air-security claim belongs only in the courts of appeals, thereby preserving a federal-district-court forum for many constitutional challenges.
• Uneven Circuit Landscape – Contrast with D.C. Circuit’s Moharam signals possible future Supreme Court intervention to reconcile approaches to § 46110 and standing.
• Policy Pressure – As credential denials become a recognized injury, agencies may face incentives to develop clearer, faster appeal mechanisms or risk broader watchlist discovery.

Complex Concepts Simplified

1. Terrorist Screening Dataset (TSDS) vs. No Fly List

Think of the TSDS as a giant umbrella list of “known or suspected” terrorists. One subset is the No Fly List—those deemed too dangerous to board aircraft entering U.S. airspace. Placement on the No Fly List always means you are also on the broader TSDS, but not vice-versa.

2. DHS TRIP

The Department of Homeland Security Traveler Redress Inquiry Program is the only formal route for travelers to challenge an aviation-security listing. It ends with a TSA Administrator’s order; that order, and only that order, falls under § 46110’s direct-review regime.

3. § 46110 Jurisdictional Channeling

Congress created a shortcut: when the TSA (or FAA) issues a final order, challenges jump straight to a federal court of appeals. But if that order is later nullified or replaced, there is no longer an “order” to channel; ordinary district-court jurisdiction revives.

4. Standing Components

• Injury-in-Fact – A real, concrete harm (financial, physical, reputational).
• Traceability – The harm must be fairly connected to the defendant’s conduct.
• Redressability – The court must be able to fix (or partially fix) it.

5. TWIC & HME

A TWIC lets commercial drivers enter port and maritime secure areas; an HME lets them haul hazardous materials. Federal regulation 49 C.F.R. § 1572.107 tells TSA to check terrorist watchlists when deciding whether an applicant is a “security threat.”

Conclusion

Long v. Bondi significantly recalibrates the procedural landscape for watchlist and No Fly List litigation within the Fourth Circuit. Plaintiffs who can demonstrate economic fallout—such as credential denials—now have a recognized concrete injury for standing. Meanwhile, the government can no longer rely on bare-bones “current information” declarations to moot No Fly claims, nor can it reflexively invoke § 46110 to divert all such disputes to the courts of appeals when the relevant TSA order has been overtaken by later TSC action. The opinion thus balances national-security deference with meaningful judicial review, reinforcing that constitutional claims tied to the watchlisting apparatus deserve a day—indeed, many days—in district court.