This morning, Christina A. Jump of CLCMA argued on behalf of the Jibril family members, for their rights to challenge their placement on a Watchlist and the excessive screening and searches they underwent, including their minor children. In her opening statements, Ms. Jump articulated that “the Jibrils, a family of seven, were separated, questioned, searched, detained and harmed. They were separated from their two year old and other minor children, and all were patted down and searched extensively, with long delays. They articulated clear and individualized harm, and challenge their reasonable belief of placement in the Terrorist Screening Database run by the Terrorist Screening Center.
This is not a situation where the courts are asked to examine ‘a plethora of different individual circumstances’ or to give ‘dispositive weight to outlier experiences.’ This case is about the Jibril family members, and the harms they clearly allege.” The district court dismissed the matter with prejudice, which all parties at the appellate level agree was improper. The government counsel argued that the remainder of the district court’s dismissal was appropriate because the Jibrils don’t state dates and times of their next intended travel, and cannot confirm at this stage (without any discovery yet) whether they are in fact on any Watchlists. But Ms. Jump argued against that higher burden proposed by the government, as well as the “trust us” approach the government takes regarding any plaintiff’s placement on a Watchlist. “The government holds the answers and not the Plaintiffs,” argued Ms. Jump, and requiring any plaintiffs to prove something the government won’t reveal is not what the law requires for a case to go forward.
Listen to the argument at the link below.