In a significant ruling on August 4, 2026, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the case of Halil Demir v. Markwayne Mullin, docket number 25-3179. The court's decision impacts individuals who feel wrongfully included on federal watchlists, specifically the Terrorist Watchlist and the Selectee List. This ruling highlights the complexities surrounding due process rights and government oversight in national security matters.
Halil Demir, a naturalized U.S. citizen and Executive Director of the Zakat Foundation of America, has faced extended airport screenings since 2016. His experiences led him to suspect that he was wrongfully included on the FBI's Terrorist Watchlist and its Selectee List, which subjects individuals to additional scrutiny during travel. Frustrated by the lack of clarity regarding his status, Demir utilized the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP) multiple times between 2016 and 2022, only to receive vague responses that did not confirm or deny his watchlist status.
Demir's legal battle began when he filed a complaint challenging his inclusion on these watchlists, claiming violations of his substantive and procedural due process rights. He argued that the DHS TRIP program was inadequate, as it failed to provide individuals with a meaningful opportunity to contest their watchlist status. The case ultimately reached the Seventh Circuit after the district court dismissed Demir's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing 49 U.S.C. § 46110, which channels challenges to Transportation Security Administration (TSA) orders to a court of appeals.
The Seventh Circuit's ruling was mixed. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of Demir's challenge to his inclusion on the Terrorist Watchlist and Selectee List, stating, "Section 46110 does not apply to Demir’s challenges to his inclusion in the Terrorist Watchlist and Selectee List because it only grants a court of appeals original jurisdiction over TSA, which does not control either list." This means that Demir's claims regarding his watchlist status can be heard in the district court.
However, the court upheld the dismissal of Demir's challenge to the DHS TRIP program, affirming that the program is an "order" under the meaning of § 46110. This requires Demir to file his challenge regarding the TRIP program in a court of appeals. The court emphasized that Demir's challenge to his watchlist status should be considered separately from his procedural challenge to the TRIP program.
The ruling clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries for individuals challenging their inclusion on federal watchlists. It establishes that challenges related to the Terrorist Watchlist and Selectee List must be addressed in district courts, while procedural challenges to DHS programs like TRIP must be taken to appellate courts. This distinction is significant for those who feel wronged by their treatment under national security measures.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond Demir. It sets a precedent for other individuals who believe they are wrongfully included on federal watchlists. The decision reinforces the importance of due process in governmental procedures, particularly in cases involving national security. It also highlights the need for clearer communication and transparency from agencies regarding watchlist statuses and the processes in place for individuals seeking redress.
Looking ahead, Demir's case may still have further developments. While he can appeal the dismissal of his challenge to the DHS TRIP program, it remains to be seen how the district court will handle his claims regarding his inclusion on the Terrorist Watchlist and Selectee List. The ruling opens the door for potential legal challenges that could reshape how the government manages watchlist procedures and individuals' rights to contest their status.
In summary, the Seventh Circuit's ruling in Halil Demir v. Markwayne Mullin is a pivotal moment in the ongoing conversation about civil rights and government oversight in the realm of national security. It underscores the delicate balance between protecting public safety and ensuring individual rights are upheld.