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
'This Is Genocide,' Amnesty International Says of Israel's Death Machine in Gaza
"Our damning findings must serve as a wake-up call to the international community," said Agnès Callamard, the group's secretary-general. "It must stop now."
Dec 05, 2024
The leading human rights group Amnesty International said late Wednesday what United Nations experts, national leaders, and historians have been arguing for months: that Israel's massive assault on Gaza amounts to the crime of genocide against the Palestinian population.
Amnesty, which had sharply criticized Israel's U.S.-backed war but until Thursday stopped short of labeling it genocide, details its findings and conclusion in a sprawling new report titled "You Feel Like You Are Subhuman": Israel's Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza.
The 296-page document features interviews with survivors and witnesses of Israel's large-scale campaign of bombing, displacement, arbitrary detention, and destruction of Gaza's agricultural land and civilian infrastructure, interviews supplemented by an analysis of satellite imagery, video footage, and other visual evidence.
Israeli authorities, the group said, did not respond substantively with any of its inquiries between October 2023—when the assault on Gaza began in the wake of the deadly Hamas-led attack on Israel—and October 2024. The report does, however, include quotes from Israeli officials and soldiers, including one who declared that "there is no innocence in Gaza."
"Through its research findings and legal analysis," the report states, "Amnesty International has found sufficient basis to conclude that Israel committed, during the nine-month period under review, prohibited acts under Articles II (a), (b), and (c) of the Genocide Convention, namely killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm and deliberately inflicting on Palestinians in Gaza conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole or in part."
Amnesty said it also "found sufficient basis to conclude that these acts were committed with the specific intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza, as such, who form a substantial part of the Palestinian population."
Agnès Callamard, Amnesty's secretary-general, said in a statement that her organization's report "demonstrates that Israel has carried out acts prohibited under the Genocide Convention, with the specific intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza."
"Month after month, Israel has treated Palestinians in Gaza as a subhuman group unworthy of human rights and dignity, demonstrating its intent to physically destroy them," said Callamard. "Our damning findings must serve as a wake-up call to the international community: this is genocide. It must stop now."
Amnesty published its findings more than a year into an Israeli assault that has killed more than 44,500 people in Gaza, displaced almost all of the enclave's population, and left many at dire risk of starvation and disease. Nearly 70% of the deaths verified by the U.N. have been women and children.
"Governments must stop pretending they are powerless to end this genocide, which was enabled by decades of impunity for Israel's violations of international law."
The human rights group's report comes less than a month after a special U.N. committee said that the Israeli military's actions in the Gaza Strip—including the obstruction of humanitarian aid and targeted attacks on civilians—bear "the characteristics of genocide."
Amnesty echoes that assessment, pointing to Israel's mass destruction of cultural and religious sites in Gaza, detention and torture, use of dehumanizing language against Palestinians, and—in the case of many soldiers—the open celebration of Palestinian suffering.
"Amnesty International considers that the pattern of conduct which characterized Israel's military operations, coupled with the statements of Israeli officials and soldiers made in a context of apartheid, an unlawful blockade, and an unlawful military occupation, provide sufficient evidence of Israel's intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza, as such," the report states.
Callamard called on nations continuing to provide military support for Israel's assault, including the United States, to cease arms transfers immediately, as they are "violating their obligation to prevent genocide and are at risk of becoming complicit in genocide."
"The international community's seismic, shameful failure for over a year to press Israel to end its atrocities in Gaza, by first delaying calls for a cease-fire and then continuing arms transfers, is and will remain a stain on our collective conscience," said Agnès Callamard.
"Governments must stop pretending they are powerless to end this genocide, which was enabled by decades of impunity for Israel's violations of international law," she added. "States need to move beyond mere expressions of regret or dismay and take strong and sustained international action, however uncomfortable a finding of genocide may be for some of Israel's allies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'What a Racket': CBO Finds Extending Trump Tax Cuts Would Shrink US Economy
"The looting has begun," said one Democrat. "Far from unleashing record-breaking growth, the next Trump tax scam will make hardworking families worse off, shrink our economy, and blow a $4.6 trillion hole in the deficit."
Dec 05, 2024
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected Wednesday that extending provisions of the 2017 Trump-GOP tax law that are set to expire at the end of next year would shrink the U.S. economy over the long run, a finding that came as Republicans planned to move ahead with another round of regressive tax cuts within the first 100 days of the new Congress.
In its new analysis, the CBO found that allowing provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to expire as scheduled in 2025 would have a positive long-term effect on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth compared to permanently extending the provisions.
"Expiration increases the long-term growth of potential GDP by about 6 basis points," the CBO said.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said in response to the CBO's findings that "the looting has begun."
"Far from unleashing record-breaking growth, the next Trump tax scam will make hardworking families worse off, shrink our economy, and blow a $4.6 trillion hole in the deficit," said Whitehouse. "What a racket, to push for trillions in tax cuts so billionaires keep paying lower rates than nurses and plumbers, and then cite deficit concerns to rob families needing things like home heating or childcare."
"Looting the treasury for megadonors is a rotten trick," the senator added, "and no amount of budgetary smoke and mirrors will hide it."
The CBO report was published as congressional Republicans continued to map out their legislative agenda before taking control of both chambers in January. The Associated Pressreported earlier this week that "in preparation for Trump's return, Republicans in Congress have been meeting privately for months and with the president-elect to go over proposals to extend and enhance those tax breaks, some of which would otherwise expire in 2025."
"It's always been about further enriching political and economic elites even at the cost of our economic future."
During the 2024 campaign, Trump pledged to sustain individual tax breaks enacted by the 2017 law—which disproportionately benefited the rich—and further reduce the statutory tax rate for U.S. corporations.
"The last time Republicans spent this much money for no apparent gain was the war in Iraq," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said Wednesday. "Trump's political donors want a return on their investment, and Republicans are going to give it to them, even at the cost of shrinking our economy and destroying jobs."
To offset the massive projected cost of extending the 2017 law and enacting new corporate tax cuts, Republicans are planning to pursue deep cuts to Medicaid, federal nutrition assistance, and other programs that help low-income Americans meet basic needs.
"President-elect Trump campaigned as a champion of the working class but his first act will be tanking the economy and throwing workers under the bus to line the pockets of his wealthy friends," said Lindsay Owens, executive director of the Groundwork Collaborative. "The Trump tax scam is back for its second act, and Americans should brace for impact."
David Kass, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness, called the latest CBO analysis of the Republican Party's tax policies "even more damning than previous iterations."
"Using the country's credit card to give away trillions of dollars to the wealthiest Americans and big corporations would be disastrous for our economy and the average American," Kass said Wednesday. "The Trump Tax Scam bill has never been about economic growth or improving the lives of working and middle-class Americans. It's always been about further enriching political and economic elites even at the cost of our economic future."
"Moving forward," Kass added, "the incoming administration and congressional Republicans must answer why they plan to make hardworking Americans worse off, shrink our economy, and increase the deficit by $4.6 trillion."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Signals It Will Uphold 'State-Sanctioned Discrimination' in Transgender Care Case
"We the people means all the people," said the ACLU. "There is no 'transgender' exception to the U.S. Constitution."
Dec 04, 2024
Attorneys who argued against Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming healthcare at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed hope that the court's nine justices will take "the opportunity to affirm the essential freedom and equality of all people before the law," while reports indicated that the right-wing majority is inclined to uphold the ban.
"Every day this law inflicts further pain, injustice, and discrimination on families in Tennessee and prevents them from receiving the medical care they need," said Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, staff attorney at the ACLU of Tennessee, which represented three families and a physician. "We ask the Supreme Court to commit to upholding the promises of the U.S. Constitution for all people by putting an end to Tennessee's state-sanctioned discrimination against trans youth and their families."
The law, S.B. 1, which was passed in March 2023, bars medical providers from prescribing puberty-delaying medications, other hormonal treatment, and surgical procedures to transgender minors and youths with gender dysphoria.
The Supreme Court case, United States v. Skrmetti, applies only to the ban on puberty blockers and hormonal therapy for minors; a lower court found the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to challenge the surgery ban.
The ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and a law firm were joined by the Biden administration in arguing that Tennessee allows doctors to prescribe puberty blockers and other hormonal treatments for youths with congenital defects, early puberty, diseases, or physical injuries.
As such, said the plaintiffs, Tennessee's ban for transgender and nonbinary youths violates the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal treatment under the law.
"My heart—and the heart of every transgender advocate fighting this fight—is heavy with the weight of what these laws mean for people's everyday lives."
The court's three liberal justices—Justices Sonya Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—all indicated they believed Tennessee has tried to classify people according to sex or gender with the law.
"One of the articulated purposes of this law is essentially to encourage gender conformity and to discourage anything other than gender conformity," said Kagan. "Sounds to me like, 'We want boys to be boys and we want girls to be girls,' and that's an important purpose behind the law."
Matthew Rice, the lawyer representing Tennessee in the case, claimed the state simply wants to prevent "regret" among minors, and the court's six conservative justices signaled they were inclined to allow Tennessee to ban the treatments—which are endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other top medical associations.
Chief Justice John Roberts said the nine justices should not overrule the decision made by lawmakers representing Tennessee residents, considering there is debate over the issue, and pointed to changes some European countries have made to their gender-affirming care protocols for minors.
Representing the Biden administration, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar acknowledged that there has been debate about gender-affirming care in the U.S. and abroad, but pointed out that countries including the U.K. and Sweden have not outright banned treatment.
"I think that's because of the recognition that this care can provide critical, sometimes lifesaving benefits for individuals with severe gender dysphoria," she said.
Following the arguments, plaintiff Brian Williams, who has a 16-year-old daughter in need of gender-affirming care, addressed supporters who had assembled outside the Supreme Court.
"Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming medical care is an active threat to the future my daughter deserves," said Williams. "It infringes not only on her freedom to be herself but on our family's love for her. We are not expecting everyone to understand everything about our family or the needs of transgender young people like our daughter. What we are asking for is for her freedom to be herself without fear. We are asking for her to be able to access the care she needs and enter adulthood knowing nothing is holding her back because of who she is."
Sotomayor said there is "very clear" evidence "that there are some children who actually need this treatment."
A 2022 study led by researchers at the University of Washington found that transgender and nonbinary youths aged 13-20 were 60% less likely to experience moderate or severe depression and 73% less likely to be suicidal after receiving gender-affirming care.
Prelogar asked the justices to "think about the real-world consequences of laws like S.B. 1," highlighting the case of a plaintiff identified as Ryan Roe.
Roe had such severe gender dysphoria that "he was throwing up before school every day," said Prelogar. "He thought about going mute because his voice caused him so much distress. And Ryan has told the courts that getting these medications after a careful consultation process with his doctors and his parents, has saved his life."
"But Tennessee has come in and categorically cut off access to Ryan's care," she added. "This law harms Ryan's health and the health of all other transgender adolescents for whom these medications are a necessity."
Tennessee is home to about 3,100 transgender teenagers, and about 110,000 transgender youths between the ages of 13-17 live in the 24 states where gender-affirming care is restricted.
More than 20 states have laws that could be impacted by the court's ruling in United States v. Skrmetti.
"My heart—and the heart of every transgender advocate fighting this fight—is heavy with the weight of what these laws mean for people's everyday lives," said Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project. "But I also know that every out trans person has embraced the unknown in the name of living free from shame or the limits of other people's expectations."
"My heart aches for the parents who spent years watching their children in distress and eventually found relief in the medical care that Tennessee now overrides their judgment to ban," said Strangio. "Whatever happens today, tomorrow, and in the months and years to come, I trust that we will come together to fight for the realized promise of our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection for all."
A ruling in the case is expected in June.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular