In Ahmed Shaikh v. Fox News Network, LLC, Case No. 25-12004 (11th Cir. June 4, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where a pro se plaintiff alleged that major media companies unlawfully accessed hidden cameras and devices and used government-supplied “AI mind-reading technology” to read his thoughts, mock him, and generate content. The plaintiff asserted federal claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and state-law claims under Florida’s Security of Communications Act and Florida tort law, invoking both federal-question and diversity jurisdiction.
The central issue on appeal was jurisdictional: whether the complaint’s federal claims were so implausible that they were “wholly insubstantial and frivolous”, eliminating federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and permitting dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1).
The Eleventh Circuit held that the defendants’ jurisdictional challenge was a permissible factual attack under Rule 12(b)(1) and fell within the narrow exception allowing dismissal where the purported federal claim is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” The court concluded that the allegations—media companies “watching him and reading his thoughts” through clandestine, unprecedented mind-reading technology—were “utterly divorced from reality,” had “no plausible foundation,” and were therefore frivolous. Consequently, the district court lacked federal-question jurisdiction and properly dismissed the case.
The court also treated the plaintiff’s diversity-jurisdiction theory as abandoned on appeal because he did not meaningfully argue it. Finally, it emphasized that once a court determines it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it is “powerless to continue,” and thus need not reach merits issues or ancillary motions (including Rule 11 sanctions).