In a significant ruling on August 4, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed the case of Halil Demir v. Markwayne Mullin (Docket No. 25-3179). The court's decision impacts individuals who believe they are wrongfully included on the Terrorist Watchlist and the Selectee List, as it clarifies the legal procedures available for challenging such inclusion. The court reversed part of a lower court's ruling, allowing Demir to pursue his claims in district court.
Halil Demir is a naturalized U.S. citizen and the Executive Director of the Zakat Foundation of America, an international aid organization. Since 2016, he has faced extended security screenings at airports, leading him to suspect that he is wrongfully listed on the FBI's Terrorist Watchlist and the Selectee List. Demir's attempts to resolve his situation through the Department of Homeland Security’s Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP) were unsuccessful, as he received generic responses that did not confirm his watchlist status.
Demir filed a lawsuit against several government officials, including those from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the FBI, claiming that his inclusion on the watchlists violated his due process rights. He argued that the DHS TRIP program was procedurally deficient, as it did not provide individuals with a meaningful opportunity to contest their watchlist status. The district court dismissed his complaint, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and directing him to pursue his claims in a court of appeals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110.
The Seventh Circuit's ruling clarified the jurisdictional issues surrounding Demir's case. The court concluded that Demir's challenge to his inclusion on the Terrorist Watchlist and Selectee List should be heard in district court, as the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) does not control these lists. The court stated, "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." However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Demir's challenge to the DHS TRIP program, determining that it constitutes an "order" within the meaning of § 46110, requiring him to file that claim in a court of appeals.
The ruling has significant implications for individuals who believe they are wrongly included on government watchlists. It establishes that challenges to inclusion on the Terrorist Watchlist must be filed in district courts, while challenges to the procedures of the DHS TRIP program must be taken to a court of appeals. This bifurcation of claims may lead to complexities for individuals seeking justice, as they may need to navigate multiple legal avenues to address their grievances.
The court's decision also reinforces the importance of procedural due process in cases involving government watchlists. By allowing Demir's claims regarding his inclusion on the watchlists to move forward, the court acknowledges the potential for wrongful inclusion and the need for individuals to have a fair opportunity to contest their status. The ruling may encourage others in similar situations to pursue legal action and seek accountability from government agencies.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether Demir's case will be appealed further or if other related cases will emerge. The Seventh Circuit's ruling sets a precedent for how similar cases may be handled in the future, particularly regarding the jurisdictional boundaries for challenging government actions related to national security and individual rights.
In conclusion, the Seventh Circuit's ruling in Halil Demir v. Markwayne Mullin marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing conversation about civil liberties and government surveillance. As more individuals come forward with similar claims, the legal landscape surrounding watchlist inclusion and procedural due process will likely continue to evolve.