“Removal Is Not Enough” – Fourth Circuit Clarifies Mootness, Jurisdiction, and Standing in Terrorist Watch-List Litigation

I. Introduction

In Saadiq Long v. Pamela Bondi, No. 24-1369/1403 (4th Cir. Aug. 14, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit revisited a decade-long dispute surrounding federal watch-listing. The court:

• Re-opened constitutional and statutory challenges to Long’s prior placement on the No-Fly List after the Supreme Court’s decision in FBI v. Fikre (2024);
• Clarified when 49 U.S.C. § 46110 divests district courts of jurisdiction, holding that it does not bar suits that attack the Terrorist Screening Center’s (TSC) initial watch-list determinations once the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) order has been superseded;
• Found Article III standing based on TSA’s effective denial of commercial credentials (TWIC and HME) traceable to watch-list status, while rejecting standing theories predicated on mere data dissemination through the NCIC database; and
• Vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded for merits consideration.

The case stitches together a line of evolving watch-list jurisprudence and establishes a three-part precedent: (1) removal from the No-Fly List rarely moots a controversy, (2) challenges to TSC decisions belong in district court unless an extant TSA order is under attack, and (3) concrete economic harm—here the loss of transport credentials—can supply standing to contest broader watch-listing practices.

II. Summary of the Judgment

• Mootness: Guided by Fikre, the panel held that Long’s removal from the No-Fly List did not moot his substantive and procedural claims because the Government’s assurance that he would not be relisted “on the currently available information” failed to preclude future unlawful relisting.
• § 46110 Jurisdiction: Section 46110 channels direct review of “orders of the TSA Administrator” to the courts of appeals. Because TSC later removed Long from the list, the earlier TSA order was superseded; therefore, Long’s suit—which targets TSC listing criteria and procedures—falls within district-court competence.
• Standing:
  • Recognized injury: TSA’s effective denial of Long’s Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) and Hazardous Materials Endorsement (HME) applications created a concrete, particularized, and redressable injury.
  • Rejected injuries: Past traffic stops, firearm-purchase frustration, and broad NCIC dissemination were deemed either no longer imminent or insufficiently connected to watch-listing to satisfy Article III.
• Disposition: The Fourth Circuit vacated the lower court’s Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal and remanded:
  • to adjudicate the No-Fly-List claims on the merits;
  • to assess whether any challenge aimed at the DHS TRIP process itself must be transferred under § 46110; and
  • to evaluate Rule 12(b)(6) arguments on the remaining Watch-List claims.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. FBI v. Fikre, 144 S. Ct. 771 (2024) – The cornerstone. The Supreme Court ruled that voluntary removal from the No-Fly List without a categorical and lasting guarantee does not moot constitutional challenges. The Fourth Circuit applied Fikre to overturn its own earlier holding (Long v. Pekoske, 38 F.4th 417 (4th Cir. 2022)).
2. Blitz v. Napolitano, 700 F.3d 733 (4th Cir. 2012) – Explained the breadth of § 46110 for TSA “orders.” The court contrasted Blitz with present facts: an expired TSA order replaced by TSC action.
3. Elhady v. Kable, 993 F.3d 208 (4th Cir. 2021) – Provided earlier limitations on standing for mere NCIC dissemination; reaffirmed here.
4. Moharam v. TSA, 134 F.4th 598 (D.C. Cir. 2025) – Distinguished to show why Long’s claims (challenging TSC placement, not TSA refusal) survive.
5. Classics – Lujan (standing), Susan B. Anthony List (pre-enforcement injury), City of L.A. v. Lyons (injunctive standing), used to parse imminent harm.

B. Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Law-of-the-Case Reset: The panel invoked the “intervening Supreme Court precedent” exception, freeing itself from its 2022 decision and the district court’s reliance thereon.
2. Mootness Framework: Under Fikre, the Government bears a “formidable burden” to prove that relisting cannot reasonably recur. A limited declaration referencing “currently available information” was inadequate.
3. § 46110 Carve-Out:
   • TSA’s 2019 final order (affirming Long’s listing) is reviewable exclusively in an appellate petition while effective.
   • TSC’s 2020 delisting superseded that order; thus, the operative agency decision under attack (initial placement) is not a TSA order. District courts therefore retain jurisdiction.
4. Standing Analysis:
   • Injury-in-fact: Loss of livelihood credentials is concrete and particularized.
   • Traceability: Regulations (49 C.F.R. § 1572.107) explicitly link watch-list hits to TWIC/HME denials.
   • Redressability: An injunction removing Long from the Watch-List would clear the regulatory hurdle and likely lead TSA to grant the credentials.
   • Dissemination-based injuries flunked traceability or imminence tests.

C. Impact on Future Litigation and Policy

• Litigation Strategy: Plaintiffs challenging watch-listing will now anchor standing in tangible downstream effects (e.g., employment licenses, immigration benefits) rather than in abstract reputational harms.
• Jurisdictional Clarity: District courts in the Fourth Circuit may hear suits targeting TSC procedures unless an active TSA order is the focus, narrowing the government’s customary § 46110 shield.
• Government Procedure: Agencies may issue fuller, irrevocable delisting letters—or create clearer multi-agency records—to moot future suits.
• Inter-Circuit Dynamics: The decision intensifies a budding split with circuits giving broader reach to § 46110 (e.g., Sixth Circuit’s Mokdad dicta) and may invite Supreme Court clarification.
• Civil Liberties Discourse: The ruling underscores judicial discomfort with opaque, criteria-shifting watch-list regimes and may spur legislative oversight of TSC autonomy versus TSA review.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

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

The No-Fly List is a small subset inside the TSDS (a.k.a. Watch-List). Being on the No-Fly List bars boarding flights; being only on the Watch-List triggers less severe, but still significant, downstream effects (extra screening, law-enforcement alerts, licensing delays).

TSC vs. TSA

TSC (an FBI-run multi-agency center) decides who appears on the lists. TSA enforces aviation security and runs the DHS TRIP redress process and issues credentials (TWIC/HME).

49 U.S.C. § 46110

Channeling statute sending challenges to TSA orders straight to the courts of appeals, bypassing district courts.

Mootness

A case is moot when there is no longer a live controversy. Under Fikre, voluntary cessation by the Government must be both comprehensive and permanent to moot watch-list suits.

Article III Standing

Requires (1) concrete, particularized injury; (2) traceability to defendant’s conduct; and (3) likelihood of redress by the requested relief.

TWIC / HME

Transportation Worker Identification Credential & Hazardous Materials Endorsement – federal credentials needed for port access and hazardous cargo trucking. Both undergo terrorism-based vetting.

V. Conclusion

Saadiq Long v. Bondi crystallizes three critical propositions in watch-list litigation:

1. Government delisting—without an unequivocal promise never to relist—does not render constitutional and APA challenges moot.
2. When the TSC’s choices, rather than a live TSA order, are in dispute, district courts retain jurisdiction notwithstanding § 46110.
3. Tangible, livelihood-related consequences (e.g., denial of professional credentials) satisfy Article III standing and may open the courthouse door even where reputational or disclosure injuries do not.

The decision thereby re-energises watch-list accountability in the Fourth Circuit, narrows the Government’s procedural defenses, and signals to agencies and litigants alike that “removal is not enough.” Absent a transparent, durable, and statutory process, watch-list controversies will remain live—and reviewable—long after a traveler’s name disappears from the boarding gate database.