July, 11 2014, 04:06pm EDT

Leading Groups Stand Strong With American Muslims in Appeal of NYPD Spying Lawsuit
Last night, dozens of organizations and individuals representing diverse interests and faiths filed amicus briefs in support of a lawsuit challenging the blanket surveillance of Muslims in New Jersey by the New York Police Department (NYPD). Late last week, Muslim Advocates and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) appealed a federal district court's dismissal of the case, Hassan et al v.
NEW YORK, NY
Last night, dozens of organizations and individuals representing diverse interests and faiths filed amicus briefs in support of a lawsuit challenging the blanket surveillance of Muslims in New Jersey by the New York Police Department (NYPD). Late last week, Muslim Advocates and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) appealed a federal district court's dismissal of the case, Hassan et al v. City of New York, and demanded that the NYPD stop violating American Muslims' rights by targeting them for surveillance.
In one brief, law enforcement officials wrote, "Bias-based policing is not only ineffective, it is counterproductive to law enforcement goals. For law enforcement to function effectively, local police must form bonds with the communities they serve. Bias-based policing methods undermine that goal."
Organizations and individuals that filed amicus briefs include 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care, Karen Korematsu, ACLU NJ, MALDEF, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice, Police Chief Chris Burbank, Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, Sikh Coalition, the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, AALDEF, Latino Justice, National Council of Jewish Women, the Auburn Theological Seminary, DRUM, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, ADC, and New Jersey Muslim Lawyer's Association.
In another brief, descendants of Japanese Americans who were subject to internment during World War II argued, "The history of the Japanese internment, and the ensuing apologies and atonement of each branch of the United States government, provide twin lessons. First, infringement of rights on the basis of class membership--race in the World War II era, and religion in this case--is not only inherently injurious but can and does produce injury. Second, a proffered military or police exigency, no matter how great, must be subjected to the strictest of scrutiny on the merits rather than accepted at the threshold as the basis for dismissal of an equal protection claim."
"Plaintiffs were spied on, not because of any criminal suspicion whatsoever, but because of their faith --an indisputably unconstitutional basis for police surveillance," said CCR Legal Director Baher Azmy. "The district court's decision effectively allows the City of New York to treat Muslims as second class citizens, and ratifies ugly stereotypes that could upend decades of anti-discrimination law. We hope the Court of Appeals will not let this broad sanction of racial profiling and religious discrimination stand, and we are pleased that so many prominent organizations and individuals are standing with us in the case."
Judge William Martini had dismissed the case in February, ruling in a 10-page summary opinion, without oral argument, that plaintiffs had not suffered harm and that any harm the plaintiffs might have suffered was not the result of the unlawful surveillance program, but of the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting by the Associated Press that exposed it. The court also endorsed the City's argument that its targeting of Muslims on the basis of their faith alone was justified in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. In more than ten years of operation, the City's discriminatory program has failed to unearth a single lead.
"Discriminating against innocent Americans based on their faith is wrong," said Muslim Advocates Legal Director Glenn Katon. "The NYPD has stripped individuals of the freedom to openly practice their faiths, and we hope that this lawsuit will put an end to the discriminatory policies that stand against some of the most important values that led to America's founding."
The Hassan plaintiffs comprise a broad group with diverse backgrounds, and include a decorated Iraq war veteran who currently serves as a US ARMY reservist, Rutgers students, and the former principal of a grade school for Muslim girls.
Since 2002, the NYPD has spied on at least 20 mosques, 14 restaurants, 11 retail stores, two grade schools, and two Muslim Student Associations in New Jersey. The monitoring has included video surveillance, photographing, community mapping, and infiltration. Moreover, internal documents, including a list of 28 "ancestries of interest," reveal that the NYPD used racial and ethnic backgrounds as proxies to identify and target adherents to the Muslim faith. The NYPD recently disbanded one of the main units through which it conducted the surveillance, but advocates say it is clear that discriminatory policing against Muslims has continued.
Read the appeal filing here.
The full list of organizations and individuals that filed amicus briefs is below.
- Amicus Brief of Americans for Separation of Church and State
- Amicus Brief of the Brennan Center
- Amicus Brief of ACLU-NJ et al
- Amicus Brief of Korematsu et al
- Amicus Brief of Reporters Committee
- Amicus Brief of AALDEF et al
- Amicus Brief of Law Enforcement Organizations
- Amicus Brief of Religious Liberty Groups
Or click here to read the amicus briefs.
For more information about the case, please visit www.muslimadvocates.org/endspying and https://www.ccrjustice.org/hassan.
Hassan was initially filed by Muslim Advocates. The Center for Constitutional Rights and Gibbons, P.C. have joined as co-counsel.
List of organizations and groups that filed amicus briefs:
- 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care
- American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)
- American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey
- The American Humanist Association
- Americans United for Separation of Church and State
- Arab American Association of New York (AAANY)
- Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF)
- Asian Americans Advancing Justice -- Asian Law Caucus (ALC)
- The Association of Black Women Lawyers of New Jersey
- The Auburn Theological Seminary
- Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice
- The Bill of Rights Defense Committee
- Brennan Center for Justice
- The Central Conference of American Rabbis
- Chris Burbank (Salt Lake City Chief of Police)
- The Council of Islamic Organization of Greater Chicago (CIOGC)
- Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility (CLEAR)
- DRUM -- South Asian Organizing Center (formerly Desis Rising Up and Moving)
- Eric Adams (Brooklyn Borough President)
- The Garden State Bar Association
- The Hispanic Bar Association of New Jersey
- Holly Yasui (Daughter of Minoru Yasui)
- The Hindu Temple Society of North America
- Imam Mahdi Association of Marjaeya (IMAM)
- Interfaith Alliance Foundation
- The Islamic Shura Council of Southern California
- The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)
- Jay Hirabayashi (Son of Gary Hirabayashi)
- Karen Korematsu (Daughter of Fred Korematsu)
- Latino Justice PRLDEF
- Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF)
- The Muslim Alliance in North America
- Muslim American Civil Liberties Coalition (MACLC)
- Muslim Bar Association of New York (MuBANY)
- Muslim Congress
- Muslim Consultative Network (MCN)
- Muslims for Peace
- Muslim Legal Fund of America (MLFA)
- Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)
- The National Council of Jewish Women
- The National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA (NCC)
- National Lawyers Guild -- New York City Chapter (NLG-NYC)
- National Network for Arab American Communities (NNAAC)
- The National Religious Campaign Against Torture
- New Jersey Muslim Lawyers Association (NJMLA)
- North Jersey Media Group Inc.
- The Northern California Islamic Council
- Project SALAM (Support and Legal Advocacy for Muslims)
- The Queens Federation of Churches, Inc.
- The Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association
- The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
- Shia Rights Watch (SRW)
- The Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund
- The Sikh Coalition
- South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT)
- Ta'leef Collective
- T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights
- The Union for Reform Judaism
- The Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of New Jersey
- The Universal Muslim Association of America (UMAA)
- Universal Muslim Association of America Advocacy (UMAA Advocacy)
- The Women of Reform Judaism
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
Judge Blocks Trump From Requiring Proof of Citizenship on Federal Voting Form
"Trump’s attempt to impose a documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form is an unconstitutional power grab," said one plaintiff in the case.
Oct 31, 2025
A federal judge on Friday permanently blocked part of President Donald Trump's executive order requiring proof of US citizenship on federal voter registration forms, a ruling hailed by one plaintiff in the case as "a clear victory for our democracy."
Siding with Democratic and civil liberties groups that sued the administration over Trump's March edict mandating a US passport, REAL ID-compliant document, military identification, or similar proof in order to register to vote in federal elections, Senior US District Judge for the District of Columbia Colleen Kollar-Kotelly found the directive to be an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers.
“Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the states and to Congress, this court holds that the president lacks the authority to direct such changes," Kollar-Kotelly, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, wrote in her 81-page ruling.
"The Constitution addresses two types of power over federal elections: First, the power to determine who is qualified to vote, and second, the power to regulate federal election procedures," she continued. "In both spheres, the Constitution vests authority first in the states. In matters of election procedures, the Constitution assigns Congress the power to preempt State regulations."
"By contrast," Kollar-Kotelly added, "the Constitution assigns no direct role to the president in either domain."
This is the second time Kollar-Kotelly has ruled against Trump's proof-of-citizenship order. In April, she issued a temporary injunction blocking key portions of the directive.
"The president doesn't have the authority to change election procedures just because he wants to."
"The court upheld what we've long known: The president doesn't have the authority to change election procedures just because he wants to," the ACLU said on social media.
Sophia Lin Lakin of the ACLU, a plaintiff in the case, welcomed the decision as “a clear victory for our democracy."
"President Trump’s attempt to impose a documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form is an unconstitutional power grab," she added.
Campaign Legal Center president Trevor Potter said in a statement: "This federal court ruling reaffirms that no president has the authority to control our election systems and processes. The Constitution gives the states and Congress—not the president—the responsibility and authority to regulate our elections."
"We are glad that this core principle of separation of powers has been upheld and celebrate this decision, which will ensure that the president cannot singlehandedly impose barriers on voter registration that would prevent millions of Americans from making their voices heard in our elections," Potter added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘It Does Not Have to Be This Way’: Child Hunger Set to Surge as Trump Withholds SNAP Funds
Two federal courts ruled Friday that the White House must release contingency food assistance funds, but officials have suggested they will not comply with the orders.
Oct 31, 2025
Though two federal judges ruled on Friday that the Trump administration must use contingency funds to continue providing food assistance that 42 million Americans rely on, White House officials have signaled they won't comply with the court orders even as advocates warn the lapse in nutrition aid funding will cause an unprecedented child hunger crisis that families are unprepared to withstand.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is planning to freeze payments to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program on Saturday as the government shutdown reaches the one-month mark, claiming it can no longer fund SNAP and cannot tap $5 billion in contingency funds that would allow recipients to collect at least partial benefits in November.
President Donald Trump said Thursday that his administration is "going to get it done," regarding the funding of SNAP, but offered no details on his plans to keep the nation's largest anti-hunger program funded, and his agriculture secretary, Brooke Rollins, would not commit on Friday to release the funds if ordered to do so.
"We're looking at all the options," Rollins told CNN before federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island ordered the administration to fund the program.
The White House and Republicans in Congress have claimed the only way to fund SNAP is for Democratic lawmakers to vote for a continuing resolution proposed by the GOP to keep government funding at current levels; Democrats have refused to sign on to the resolution because it would allow healthcare subsidies under the Affordable Care Act to expire.
The administration previously said it would use the SNAP contingency funds before reversing course last week. A document detailing the contingency plan disappeared from the USDA's website this week. The White House's claims prompted two lawsuits filed by Democrat-led states and cities as well as nonprofit groups that demanded the funding be released.
On Thursday evening, US Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) addressed her followers on the social media platform X about the impending hunger emergency, emphasizing that the loss of SNAP benefits for 42 million Americans—39% of whom are children—is compounding a child poverty crisis that has grown since 2021 due to Republicans' refusal to extend pandemic-era programs like the enhanced child tax credit.
"One in eight kids in America lives in poverty in 2024," said Jayapal. "Sixty-one percent of these kids—that's about 6 million kids— have at least one parent who is employed. So it's not that people are not working, they're working, but they're not earning enough."
"I just want to be really clear that it is a policy choice to have people who are hungry, to have people who are poor," she said.
Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, an economist at Georgetown University, told The Washington Post that the loss of benefits for millions of children, elderly, and disabled people all at once is "unprecedented."
“We’ve never seen the elderly and children removed from the program in this sort of way,” Schanzenbach told the Post. “It really is hard to predict something of this magnitude."
A Thursday report by the economic justice group Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) emphasized that the impending child hunger crisis comes four months after Republicans passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which slashed food assistance by shifting some of the cost of SNAP to the states from the federal government, expanding work requirements, and ending adjustments to benefits to keep pace with food inflation.
Meanwhile, the law is projected to increase the incomes of the wealthiest 20% of US households by 3.7% while reducing the incomes of the poorest 20% of Americans by an average of 3.8%.
Now, said ATF, "they're gonna let hard-working Americans go hungry so billionaires can get richer."
At Time on Thursday, Stephanie Land, author of Class: A Memoir of Motherhood, Hunger, and Higher Education, wrote that "the cruelty is the point" of the Trump administration's refusal to ensure the 61-year-old program, established by Democratic former President Lyndon B. Johnson, doesn't lapse for the first time in its history.
"Once, when we lost most of our food stamp benefit, I mentally catalogued every can and box of food in the cupboards, and how long the milk we had would last," wrote Land. "They’d kicked me, the mother of a recently-turned 6-year-old, off of food stamps because I didn’t meet the work requirement of 20 hours a week. I hadn’t known that my daughter’s age had qualified me to not have to meet that requirement, and without warning, the funds I carefully budgeted for food were gone."
"It didn’t matter that I was a full-time student and worked 10-15 hours a week," she continued. "This letter from my local government office said it wasn’t sufficient to meet their stamp of approval. In their opinion, I wasn’t working enough to deserve to eat. My value, my dignity as a human being, was completely dependent on my ability to work, as if nothing else about me awarded me the ability to feel satiated by food."
"Whether the current administration decides to continue to fund SNAP in November or not, the intended damage has already been done. The fear of losing means for food, shelter, and healthcare is the point," Land added. "Programs referred to as a 'safety net' are anything but when they can be removed with a thoughtless, vague message, or scribble from a permanent marker. It’s about control to gain compliance, and our most vulnerable populations will struggle to keep up."
On Thursday, the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) expressed hope that the president's recent statement saying the White House will ensure people obtain their benefits will "trigger the administration to use its authority and precedent to prevent disruptions in food assistance."
"The issue at hand is not political. It is about ensuring that parents can put food on the table, older adults on fixed incomes can meet their nutritional needs, and children continue to receive the meals they rely on. SNAP is one of the most effective tools for reducing hunger and supporting local economies," said the group.
"Swift and transparent action is needed," FRAC added, "to restore stability, maintain public confidence, and ensure that our state partners, local economies and grocers, and the millions of children, older adults, people with disabilities, and veterans who participate in SNAP are not left bearing the consequences of federal inaction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Immigration Agents Cause Chaos In Chicago Suburb as New Report Documents 'Pattern of Extreme Brutality'
"Our message for ICE is simple: Get the hell out," said Evanston, Illinois Mayor Daniel Biss.
Oct 31, 2025
Officials in Evanston, Illinois are accusing federal immigration officials of "deliberately causing chaos" in their city during a Friday operation that led to angry protests from local residents.
As reported by Fox 32 Chicago, Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss and other local leaders held a news conference on Friday afternoon to denounce actions earlier in the day by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials.
"Our message for ICE is simple: Get the hell out of Evanston," Biss said during the conference.
In a social media post ahead of the press conference, Biss, who is currently a candidate for US Senate, described the agents' actions as "monstrous" and vowed that he would "continue to track the movement of federal agents in and around Evanston and ensure that the Evanston Police Department is responding in the appropriate fashion."
As of this writing, it is unclear how the incident involving the immigration officials in Evanston began, although witness Jose Marin told local publication Evanston Now that agents on Friday morning had deliberately caused a car crash in the area near the Chute Elementary School, and then proceeded to detain the vehicle's passengers.
Videos taken after the crash posted by Chicago Tribune investigative reporter Gregory Royal Pratt and by Evanston Now reporter Matthew Eadie show several people in the area angrily confronting law enforcement officials as they were in the process of detaining the passengers.
“You a criminal!” Evanston residents angrily confront immigration agents pic.twitter.com/t7jVaC4czq
— Gregory Royal Pratt (@royalpratt) October 31, 2025
Another video of ICE grabbing at least two people after a crash on Oakton/Asbury in Evanston
Witnesses say at least three were arrested by Feds pic.twitter.com/DStgCrKWTA
— Matthew Eadie (@mattheweadie22) October 31, 2025
The operation in Evanston came on the same day that Bellingcat published a report documenting what has been described as "a pattern of extreme brutality" being carried out by immigration enforcement officials in Illinois.
Specifically, the publication examined social media videos of immigration enforcement actions taken between October 9 to October 27, and found "multiple examples of force and riot control weapons being used" in apparent violation of a judge's temporary restraining order that banned such weapons except in cases where federal officers are in immediate danger.
"In total, we found seven [instances] that appeared to show the use of riot control weapons when there was seemingly no apparent immediate threat by protesters and no audible warnings given," Bellingcat reported. "Nineteen showed use of force, such as tackling people to the ground when they were not visibly resisting. Another seven showed agents ordering or threatening people to leave public places. Some of the events identified showed incidents that appeared to fall into more than one of these categories."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


