Saad Khalid v. Todd Blanche

── Saad Khalid v. Todd Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Date: April 14, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued October 10, 2025 Decided April 14, 2026 No. 24-5091 SAAD BIN KHALID, APPELLANT v. TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, ONLY, ET AL., APPELLEES Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:21-cv-02307) Gadeir I. Abbas argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Lena F. Masri and Justin Sadowsky. Joshua P. Waldman, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellees. On the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, at the time the brief was filed, and Sharon Swingle and Catherine Padhi, Attorneys. Before: HENDERSON, PILLARD and CHILDS, Circuit Judges.  2 Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge PILLARD. KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge: In 2019, Saad Bin Khalid was not allowed to board an Emirates Airline flight from Pakistan to the United States. Hoping to prevent this from recurring, he followed the administrative redress process overseen by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The inquiry revealed that Khalid is on the federal government’s No Fly List. Designation on the No Fly List is dependent on inclusion in the Terrorist Screening Dataset, often called the Terrorist Watchlist. Thus, Khalid’s appearance on the No Fly List indicated to him that he was also on the Terrorist Watchlist. Khalid thought to challenge both designations—Terrorist Watchlist and No Fly List—in one lawsuit. But a challenge to inclusion on the No Fly List brought after administrative redress is pursued must proceed as a petition for review under 49 U.S.C. § 46110, which grants the circuit court exclusive jurisdiction of TSA Administrator orders. See Busic v. Transp. Sec. Admin., 62 F.4th 547, 549 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (per curiam). The same statutory review scheme does not apply to Terrorist Watchlist claims, however, because the Threat Screening Center (TSC) alone oversees the broader list. See Ege v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 784 F.3d 791, 793 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (holding this Court lacks jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. § 46110 to issue an order binding the TSC). Thus, Khalid’s claims split, with the Terrorist Watchlist claims proceeding in the district court and the No Fly List claims separately proceeding as a petition for review in this Court. In this appeal, Khalid challenges his inclusion on the Terrorist Watchlist. Given the interdependence of the  3 watchlisting system, a district court’s decision favorable to Khalid as to the Terrorist Watchlist would automatically operate to remove Khalid from the No Fly List and thereby set aside a TSA Administrator order. Under Section 46110, as noted supra, only the circuit court may take this action (which we today decline to do, Khalid v. Transp. Sec. Admin., No. 23- 1150 (D.C. Cir. April 14, 2026)). The district court therefore held it lacks the necessary authority to redress Khalid’s injuries and dismissed Khalid’s Terrorist Watchlist–related claims for lack of Article III standing. Khalid v. Garland, No. 21-cv- 2307, 2024 WL 1299339, at *5–6 (D.D.C. Mar. 27, 2024). We now affirm. I. Background A. The Terrorist Watchlist System In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the federal government created a multi-agency, consolidated list of suspected-terrorist identity information called the Terrorist Screening Dataset,1 shortened to the Terrorist Watchlist. See Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-6, Directive on Inte