December, 09 2020, 11:00pm EDT
Supreme Court Unanimous: American Muslims Placed on No-Fly List for Refusing to Spy on Their Communities Can Sue FBI Agents for Damages
WASHINGTON
Today, the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that American Muslims who were placed or kept on the No-Fly List in retaliation for refusing to spy on their communities may sue individual FBI agents for interfering with their freedom to practice their religion. The men initially sued to be removed from the List. After years of being prevented from flying, and just days before the first major hearing in the case, the defendants issued each man a letter informing them they were no longer on the List. A judge then dismissed the remaining portion of their lawsuit, which sought damages for the emotional and financial harm the men had suffered, but a federal appeals court reinstated the case. The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled today that the men may sue for damages.
"It is a soaring feeling," said lead plaintiff Muhammad Tanvir. "I made my life in this country, so this is important not just for me, but for everybody. I don't want the same thing that the FBI did to me to happen to others."
After repeatedly refusing FBI requests to spy on their Muslim communities -- among other things, to visit online Islamic forums or attend certain mosques and "act extremist" -- and after years of flying without incident, Muhammad Tanvir, Jameel Algibhah, Naveed Shinwari, and a fourth man who did not join in the appeal discovered they were not permitted to board flights. FBI agents told each man he would be able to get off the No-Fly List if he agreed to work for the FBI. The FBI's focus on the men had nothing to do with any criminal investigation.
The men argued that the FBI agents abused the List, placing them on it not because they posed any threat to aviation security, but in order to coerce them into being informants on their communities, thereby violating their religious rights. The case was brought under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and other statutes. The men and their attorneys say it is not enough simply to remove the men from the List; they say accountability for abuses by FBI agents is necessary to prevent those abuses from happening again.
According to the unanimous decision, "A damages remedy is not just 'appropriate' relief as viewed through the lens of suits against Government employees. It is also the only form of relief that can remedy some RFRA violations. For certain injuries, such as respondents' wasted plane tickets, effective relief consists of damages, not an injunction."
"The Supreme Court today vindicated our clients' courageous stand for their religious freedom as Muslims who would not spy on their own faith community," saidRamzi Kassem, Professor of Law and Director of the CLEAR (Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility) Clinic at CUNY School of Law, who argued the case before the Court. "The Court's unanimous decision also sends a clear message to FBI agents who should think twice now before abusing the power to put people on the No-Fly List."
As a result of their placement on the No-Fly List, for years the men were unable to see spouses, children, sick parents, and elderly grandparents who are overseas. They lost jobs, were stigmatized within their communities, and suffered severe financial and emotional distress.
Said Baher Azmy, Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, "We are gratified that our clients' brave fight for recognition and accountability for these abuses of law enforcement power can continue in the courts. This decision sends a message that the FBI cannot continue to assume they can act with impunity in surveilling, harassing, and punishing the Muslim community, and other vulnerable communities federal law enforcement entities seek to target."
Advocates say the FBI's abusive behavior in this case is just one example of the profiling, targeting, and harassment of Muslims by law enforcement and other government officials, which also includes extensive surveillance and infiltration of their religious communities and spaces, including mosques; holds on immigration status and other benefits; and the Muslim Ban.
"Today's decision is a victory for religious communities against improper government intrusion," said Jennifer R. Cowan, Pro Bono Counsel at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, "and it is the result of our clients' determination to stand up for their rights. We look forward to continuing this fight in the district court."
Tanvir v. Tanzin was brought by the CLEAR Project, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and co-counsel at the law firm of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464LATEST NEWS
Far-Right Prime Minister of Slovakia Shot in Assassination Attempt
Robert Fico was in "life-threatening condition" after the shooting.
May 15, 2024
This is a developing story... Check back for possible updates...
Robert Fico, the right-wing prime minister of Slovakia who has aligned himself with Hungarian authoritarian leader Viktor Orbán and Russian President Vladimir Putin, was in "life-threatening condition" Wednesday after being shot "multiple" times in what the government called an assassination attempt.
Fico was shot in the town of Handlova after attending a government meeting and greeting supporters.
Slovakian outlet Aktualityreported Fico had two gunshot wounds in his arm and one in his abdomen.
Fico was first elected prime minister in 2006, and has faced corruption allegations during his political career. He resigned in 2018 during mass protests over the killing of an investigative journalist who was conducting a government probe, and was again elected last September.
The prime minister has opposed mainstream European Union policies and sending military aid to Ukraine, and Slovakia became the first country to halt such aid in October after Fico took office.
Stunned reactions poured in from leaders in Slovakia and around the world, with President Zuzana Čaputová, a staunch defender of Ukraine, condemning the shooting "in the strongest possible terms."
Orbán said he was "deeply shocked by the heinous attack against my friend."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Cable News Refused to Report Trump's Bombshell Quid Pro Quo Offer to Big Oil Execs
"The most under-covered Trump story is his complete selling-out of the American people on issues they care about most," one political insider said.
May 15, 2024
Major cable news networks Fox News Channel, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC all failed to cover former President Donald Trump's promise to Big Oil executives that he would reverse President Joe Biden's climate regulations if they donated $1 billion to his campaign, according to an analysis published by Media Matters for America late Tuesday.
When the news first broke, Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch wrote, "You won't read a more important story today." Yet, in the four days after the story broke, it only received 48 minutes of cable airtime—all on MSNBC.
"The most under-covered Trump story is his complete selling-out of the American people on issues they care about most," Jesse Lee, a former Biden communications adviser, posted on social media in response to the report. "If gas prices go up soon, these same networks that ignored Trump's $1 billion oil bribe will cover it constantly—and crucify Biden."
"He is basically saying he's going to destroy the planet that our children... are growing up on just if these guys will write him a check."
The story of Trump's quid pro quo offer to fossil fuel executives was first reported by The Washington Post on May 9. It detailed a dinner the former president hosted at Mar-a-Lago in April attended by leaders of oil and gas firms including ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Occidental Petroleum. During the dinner, Trump told the executives that a $1 billion donation would be a "deal" for the industry "because of the taxation and regulation they would avoid thanks to him."
To assess how cable covered—or didn't cover—the story, Media Matters for America looked at the transcripts from May 9 to May 12 for CNN; Fox News Channel; MSNBC; ABC's "Good Morning America," "World News Tonight," and "This Week;" CBS' "Mornings," "Evening News," and "Face the Nation;" and NBC's "Today," "Nightly News," and "Meet the Press." They searched the transcripts for the words "Trump," "former president," or "Mar-a-Lago" close to the words "oil," "donor," "executive," "billion," "industry," "fossil," or "fuel," as well as any version of the words "environment" or "CEO."
Only the MSNBC transcripts turned up any results. These included:
- Just over 18 minutes—or nearly 40% of the total—on "Velshi" on May 11, featuring interviews with climate activist Bill McKibben, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington president Noah Bookbinder, and The Atlantic's David A. Graham.
- A discussion on the May 9 edition of "Alex Wagner Tonight" between host Wagner and guests former Obama Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and former Biden Press Secretary Jen Psaki.
- An interview on the May 10 edition of "All in With Chris Hayes" with New York Times climate reporter Lisa Friedman.
- An exchange on the May 11 edition of "Alex Witt Reports" between host Witt and New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker.
- An interview on the May 12 edition of "Ayman" with Princeton University sociology professor Kim Lane Scheppele and New York Times columnist and analyst Michelle Goldberg.
- Mentions on "The ReidOut" and "The Weekend."
Several of the MSNBC interviews did highlight the importance of the story—which has prompted an investigation by a top House Democrat.
McKibben told Ali Velshi that "in a very real sense this is the most important climate election ever."
Others focused on the blatant corruption of the exchange. Graham noted that it was particularly brazen.
"He is making it clear what the quid pro quo is without any kind of pretense. It's just right here, 'You give me money; I'll do what you want me to do,'" Graham told Velshi.
Rhodes called it "basic pay-to-play corruption," adding, "He is basically saying he's going to destroy the planet that our children... are growing up on just if these guys will write him a check."
There were also comments on what the news said about the fossil fuel executives themselves.
"These are the same executives who, in the wake of January 6, said, 'We're not going to support people who undermined our democracy,'" Bookbinder pointed out. "And there they are, these couple of years later, meeting with Donald Trump, courting his support, hearing his offer—his demands—that they give a billion dollars to his campaign."
Baker told Witt: "I think it's going to confirm for a lot of people who are already suspicious of the fossil fuel industry that they have, over the years, bought off Washington writ large. That's been a longtime conviction on the part of people who think that the energy industry has too much power."
"It's going to cause a lot of cynicism, obviously, especially if Donald Trump were to win and then to try to roll back some of these climate initiatives," Baker continued. "People will make the assumption—and it will have some obvious evidence to back it up—that he is doing so in exchange for large contributions from an industry that's affected by it."
They will, that is, if they caught the 48 minutes of reporting the story received.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Moves Forward With 'Immoral' $1 Billion Arms Shipment to Israel
The new shipment was announced "right after the State Department admits Israel has 'likely' used U.S.-supplied weapons in violation of humanitarian law," said one journalist.
May 15, 2024
Less than a week after U.S. President Joe Biden said he was pausing a shipment of thousands of bombs to Israel, citing concerns over the safety of civilians in Rafah and other "population centers" in Gaza, the White House informed Congress Tuesday that it will soon send over $1 billion more in arms and ammunition to the Israel Defense Forces.
The package includes about $700 million for tank ammunition, $500 million in tactical vehicles, and $60 million in mortar rounds, congressional aides toldTheAssociated Press.
Despite the Biden administration's repeated claims that it believes U.S. bombs should not "be dropped in densely populated cities," Intercept reporter Prem Thakker pointed out that the arms shipment was announced days after the State Department admitted in a report that it was "reasonable" to conclude Israel has used U.S. weapons to violate international humanitarian law in its relentless bombing of Gaza.
It was unclear whether the $1 billion shipment was part of an existing arms sale or a new transaction with Israel. The weapons are not among those included in the $17 billion in military aid for the IDF included in a foreign aid package passed last month.
At Al Jazeera, Shihab Rattansi reported that the weapons shipment is "being presented as the long-term U.S. commitment to supplying Israel with weaponry" and "has been under consideration since mid-spring," with some of the weapons potentially not reaching the IDF for months or even up to three years.
But foreign policy analyst Rula Jebreal suggested that regardless of whether the weapons are used in Rafah, where Israel is currently expanding its assault, the shipment goes "against U.S. national security interest and global standing" and will aid Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "on his lawless path of colonization."
The shipment was announced ahead of a statement released by Amnesty International and other humanitarian groups condemning international governments—including that of the U.S.—for standing by as Israel has killed at least 35,173 Palestinians in Gaza since October while also blocking nearly all humanitarian aid, pushing part of the enclave into famine that is expected to spread.
The U.S. and other suppliers of weapons to Israel must respect last month's United Nations Human Rights Council resolution demanding an end to weapons sales to the IDF, said the groups.
"As the main weapon provider for Israel's military effort, the United States bears a significant responsibility for Israel's international humanitarian law violations. In addition to halting the transfer of high payload bombs, the U.S. should also use all its leverage to halt the ongoing military operation in Rafah," said the organizations, including Relief International and Oxfam. "All states must act now to ensure an immediate and sustained cease-fire."
Amnesty released an analysis late last month showing that U.S. bombs were used in attacks on Gaza that likely fit the definition of war crimes.
Al Jazeera's Tareq Abu Azzoum reported Wednesday from Deir el-Balah, Gaza that Israel has intensified its attacks on Rafah as well as in cities in northern Gaza.
"Over the past couple of hours, we have recorded more victims in central areas of Gaza City," reported Abu Azzoum. "Ten Palestinians have been killed in the city's Sabra neighborhood after a U.N.-run clinic was targeted by Israeli jets."
The IDF said Tuesday that it had hit more than 100 targets across the Gaza Strip in a 24-hour period and was continuing to carry out attacks in Rafah, where more than 1 million Palestinians have been forcibly displaced since October.
Nearly 450,000 people have now been forced to flee the southern city once again, and Al Jazeerareported Tuesday that at least one family that escaped Israel's Rafah incursion was killed days later in an attack on a refugee camp.
Moving forward with another weapons shipment to Israel, said U.S. economic justice group Debt Collective, was "murderous" and "immoral."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular