The Illegal Antagonization of a Name: A Case Study of the United States’s Unlawful Placement of Muslims on the No-Fly List

Written by Henessis Umacata

The opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.

How can one’s name be used to violate individual constitutional rights?

Since 2003, the United States has implemented a “No Fly” list policy which indefinitely bans U.S citizens and residents from flying to and from particular destinations. While it was originally created to prevent potentially threatening individuals from boarding commercial flights, the guidelines have received scrutiny for allowing discriminatory offenses.

With management from the FBI’s terrorist screening center, under the Department of Justice, the list serves as a guideline for permitting individuals’ entrances to and from the U.S., as well as flying over the country.

The list stems from the agency’s authority to identify and monitor suspected terrorists entering the country. This authority allows for vague criteria and low standards such as suspicion of involvement in terrorism and threat of engaging in or conducting a violent act of terrorism.

Along with the lack of clarification and specificity in the requirements, the U.S. government has the right to secrecy and complete discretion regarding the listed names. 

Furthermore, the FBI may choose to withhold their reasons for writing down a name, presenting an obstacle for those who seek to challenge their placement on the list. 

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, the US government significantly increased the size of the No Fly list from 400 in 2001 to over 80,000 by 2016. In recent years, there has been a rise in Supreme Court cases filed against the United States for discrimination against Muslims with regard to the No Fly List.

In one particular case, Ahmad Chebli, a U.S. citizen of Lebanese heritage was placed on the No Fly list after refusing to serve as an informant for the FBI in his community. Due to increasing pressure, threats, and harassment from the FBI, Chebli grew fearful and sent his wife and children to Lebanon.

A few months later, Chebli joined them and attempted to return home. When he was stopped by an airline agent and instructed to contact the U.S. government, Chebli suspected he had been placed on the No Fly List.

After seeking answers, Chebli confirmed his fear and attempted to get removed from the list for two years. In May 2021, he was finally removed from the list but he felt that the violation of his constitutional rights deserved vindication as well. 

On January 28, 2024, the Supreme Court heard a case known as FBI v. Fikre. In this case, Yonas Fikre, a Sudanese U.S. citizen, was unlawfully placed on the No Fly list and taken off of it after 6 years. With the support of the ACLU, 40 other citizens who were unlawfully placed on the list were identified. 

On March 19, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Fikre, deciding that the US government failed to prove that the case should be dismissed as moot. Therefore, the ruling maintains that the Supreme Court should hold the government to the same standards as all defendants and address the case as relevant.


Ultimately, the decision will serve as a precedent for the government’s future placement of individuals on the No Fly list, preventing arbitrary and discriminatory reasons from being upheld. Individuals who believe they were wrongfully placed on the No Fly List may continue to file suit against the government and seek a transparent explanation for their placement. 

Antagonization of such individuals allows for racial profiling, negatively impacts their mobility, and may welcome further discriminatory actions. Therefore, the government must provide transparency when placing names on the No Fly list and specify requirements.