��ʮ���²����

Individuals placed on the "No-Fly List" by the Terrorist Screening Center can have their claims handled by the district court, which has jurisdiction to offer a broader range of remedies that the Court of Appeals.

Plaintiffs in this case were fifteen individuals who believe that they were on the “No-Fly List,” which is maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC). They submitted grievances through the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), but they were not provided with any information about their inclusion on the list. TSC does not accept complaints directly; complaints must first go through the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (“TRIP”). Plaintiffs then filed suit in the United States District Court. The district court dismissed the case, stating that TSA was a necessary party but could not be joined because of 49 U.S.C. §46110. The Ninth Circuit noted that the court of appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to review orders of TSA, DHS, and the FAA, but not TSC or the FBI. Because the TSC compiles the list, the district court has jurisdiction over the challenges to the plaintiffs’ names on the list. The Court found that TSA was a necessary party, but that §46110 did not prevent joinder of TSA. The Ninth Circuit also noted that the court of appeals is only given jurisdiction under §46110 to “affirm, amend, modify, or set aside” part of TSA’s orders, but does not have jurisdiction to grant other remedies. In this case, the Court noted that any remedy must involve both TSA and TSC. Thus, the Court held that it lacked jurisdiction under §46110, since the Court would not be able to order the remedies requested. The court also remanded Plaintiffs’ procedural challenges regarding the DHS TRIP considerations. REVERSED and REMANDED.