Two free exercise cases growing out of the federal government’s war on terror have recently been decided.
Elmaghraby v. Ashcroft, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21434 (E NY, Sept. 27, 2005), involved two Muslim men from Egypt and Pakistan, respectively, who were arrested on criminal charges in the months following 9-11, and detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") Special Housing Unit in Brooklyn. Among their many claims of mistreatment during their confinement were claims of harsher treatment because of their religious beliefs and deliberate interference with their religious practices. Officers banged on their cells while they were praying, routinely confiscated their copies of the Koran, and refused to permit them to participate in Friday prayer services with fellow Muslims, making comments such as "No prayer for terrorists". The court refused to dismiss most of these claims insofar as they were based on alleged violations of the Constitution, but if found that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as claims allege RFRA violations.
The second case is Islamic American Relief Agency v. Unidentified, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21570 (Sept. 15, 2005). The case involves a challenge to action taken by the United States under anti-terrorism legislation to block the assets of the Islamic American Relief Agency. One of the claims was that by blocking its assets, the government interfered with the free exercise of religion of its donors who used the organization to fulfill their religious obligations as Muslims to engage in Zakat (humanitarian charitable giving). The court dismissed the free exercise claim both on the merits and because the organization did not have standing to assert it.
