U.S. Supreme Court rules for FBI in Muslim surveillance dispute
Send a link to a friend
[March 05, 2022]
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme
Court on Friday ruled in favor of the FBI in a case concerning
discrimination claims by three Muslim men from California who accused
the agency of conducting illegal surveillance on them after the Sept.
11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
The court unanimously overturned a lower court's 2019 ruling that said a
federal law regulating government surveillance called the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) trumped the state secrets privilege
- a legal defense based on national security interests - that the
government asserted.
The ruling means the case returns to lower courts for further
litigation, with the claims made by the plaintiffs not yet dismissed.
The Supreme Court faulted the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals' analysis, with Justice Samuel Alito writing that the FISA
provision in question "does not displace the state secrets privilege."
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2022/Mar/05/images/ads/current/castlemanor_sda_FINANCIAL_2017.png)
The lawsuit accused the FBI of infiltrating mainstream mosques in
Southern California and targeting Muslim Americans for surveillance
because of their religion. It accused the FBI of engaging in religious
discrimination in violation of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment
by targeting Muslims, as well as violating the Fourth Amendment
prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.
The plaintiffs are: Eritrean-born U.S. citizen Yassir Fazaga, an imam at
the Orange County Islamic Foundation in Mission Viejo; native-born U.S.
citizen Ali Uddin Malik, who attended the Islamic Center of Irvine; and
Yasser Abdel Rahim, a U.S. permanent resident from Egypt who also
attended the Islamic Center of Irvine. They are represented by the
American Civil Liberties Union and others.
[to top of second column]
|
![](../images/030522pics/news_r29.jpg)
The Supreme Court is seen in Washington, U.S., January 26, 2022.
REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/File Photo
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2022/Mar/05/images/ads/current/stclara_lda_SPONSOR_090519.png) The lawsuit focused upon a 14-month
period in 2006 and 2007 when the FBI paid an informant named Craig
Monteilh to gather information on Muslims as part of a post-Sept. 11
counterterrorism investigation. Monteilh met with Muslims in
southern California, adopted a Muslim name and said he wanted to
convert to Islam, according to court papers. Monteilh also recorded
conversations and conducted surveillance, according to court papers.
The arrangement unraveled when Monteilh started making statements
about wanting to take violent action. Community members reported him
to the local police and obtained a restraining order against him,
according to court papers.
A federal judge in 2012 dismissed the claims against the FBI,
determining that they were barred under the state secrets privilege.
The judge did permit claims accusing some individual FBI agents of
violating the surveillance law.
The 9th Circuit ruled that the religious claims should instead be
analyzed under a section of the FISA law that lets judges review the
legality of surveillance. The 9th Circuit also allowed the unlawful
search claims, not at issue before the Supreme Court, to move
forward.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)
[© 2022 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2022/Mar/05/images/ads/current/LPL_small%201.gif) |