## Facts

- U.S. citizen travelers alleged that, upon returning to the United States from abroad, they were repeatedly subjected to lengthy detentions, aggressive questioning, and other allegedly abusive treatment at the border.
- Plaintiffs attributed these encounters to terrorism-related watch lists and screening practices maintained by DHS and the FBI, which they alleged were overinclusive and inaccurate.
- Plaintiffs asserted differing theories: some claimed they should not be listed, others that they should be classified as low risk, and others that they were mistakenly treated as listed due to similar names or characteristics.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the government to improve watch-list accuracy and traveler identification and to prevent allegedly unlawful border detentions and delays.
- The district court certified two Rule 23(b)(2) classes: (1) a “primary traveler” class of U.S. citizens allegedly subjected to repetitive, lengthy, and abusive border detentions; and (2) a “family detainee” class of persons detained because they traveled with members of the primary traveler class.
- The government pursued an interlocutory appeal under Rule 23(f) challenging class certification.

## Issues

1. Whether challenges to border delays and treatment allegedly caused by watch-list screening were suitable for classwide injunctive or declaratory relief under Rule 23(b)(2).
2. Whether alleged “undue delay” in reentry or “frightening” screening tactics at the border necessarily constituted violations of the Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment.
3. Whether the variability in border-screening encounters defeated the requirements for class treatment, including the fit between the requested relief and classwide adjudication.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit vacated the district court’s Rule 23(b)(2) class certification and remanded.
- The court did not finally resolve the merits of plaintiffs’ Fourth or Fifth Amendment claims, but expressed skepticism that the alleged delays and tactics were categorically unconstitutional at the border.
- The court concluded that the alleged harms and the legality of any given detention turned on traveler-specific circumstances, making a single classwide injunction or declaration inappropriate.

## Legal Principles

- The government’s interest in controlling entry is at its strongest at the international border; routine border searches and seizures are generally reasonable by virtue of occurring at the border.
- Border authority includes broad statutory and historical power to conduct routine searches and seizures without a warrant or probable cause.
- The constitutional reasonableness of a border detention or search depends on the manner and circumstances of the encounter, including its scope, duration, and methods used.
- Rule 23(b)(2) certification is improper where the challenged conduct and the legality of relief depend on individualized determinations such that “final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief” is not appropriate for the class as a whole.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit vacated certification of two Rule 23(b)(2) classes challenging watch-list-related border detentions because the claims required individualized assessment of each encounter’s justification and reasonableness, and therefore could not be remedied through a single classwide injunction or declaration.


Rahman v. Chertoff, 530 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2008)