Supreme Court Grants Cert. In Challenge To Surveillance of Muslims

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted review in Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fagazi, (Docket No. 20-828, certiorari granted 6/7/2021). (Order List). In the case, a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit held that three Muslim plaintiffs may move ahead with many of their claims growing out of an FBI investigation that they allege involved unlawful searches and anti-Muslim discrimination. Subsequently the panel filed an amended opinion and the 9th Circuit denied en banc review. However, ten judges joined all or most of an opinion dissenting from the denial of en banc review. At issue is the relationship between the provisions of FISA and the state secrets privilege. Here is the SCOTUSblog case page with links to all the filings in the case. Politico has additional background.

Suit Challenges County's Limiting Jail Chaplain Position to Those With Christian Beliefs

Suit was filed last week in a Maryland federal district court by a Muslim volunteer jail chaplain challenging the requirements imposed by Prince Georges County, Maryland on applicants for a paid jail chaplain position. The complaint (full text) in Bridges v. Prince Georges County, Maryland, (D MD, filed 5/27/2021), alleges that provisions of the county's agreement with Prison Ministry of America violate the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses:

Defendant PG County illegally required all applicants to sign a so-called “Statement of Applicant’s Christian Faith.”

... [The Statement] requires applicants to affirm that they “believe in one God, Creator and Lord of the Universe, the co-eternal Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” that “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, lived a sinless life, [and] died a substitutionary atoning death on the cross,” and that “the Bible is God’s authoritative and inspired Word…without error in all its teachings, including creation, history, its own origins, and salvation.”

CAIR issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. AP has additional background on the lawsuit.

Biden Sends Greetings To Muslims Celebrating the Eid al-Fitr

 In a Facebook post yesterday, President Joe Biden said:

As the holy month of Ramadan comes to an end, Jill and I send our warmest greetings to all those celebrating Eid. May you be well throughout the year. Eid Mubarak.

Muslim Group Sues Facebook For Consumer Fraud Because of Online Hate Speech

The non-profit organization Muslim Advocates filed suit yesterday in District of Columbia Superior Court against Facebook and its executives alleging that their failure to take down anti-Muslim posts, while claiming to do so, is fraudulent and violates the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act.  The complaint (full text) in Muslim Advocates v. Zuckerberg, (DC Super. Ct., filed 4/8/2021) alleges in part:

Every day, ordinary people are bombarded with harmful content in violation of Facebook’s own policies on hate speech, bullying, harassment, dangerous organizations, and violence. Hateful, anti-Muslim attacks are especially pervasive on Facebook. 

Yet Facebook refuses to “remove” this content or “take it down,” as its executives repeatedly promised that they and the company would do when they learn of such content. Instead, in an effort to convince Congress, civil rights groups, and the public that their product is safe, Facebook’s officials have consistently misrepresented the company’s actual practices when it comes to enforcing Facebook’s own its own standards and policies to keep Facebook free of hate speech and other harmful content....

Facebook has been used, among other things, to orchestrate the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, mass murders of Muslims in India, and riots and murders in Sri Lanka that targeted Muslims for death. Anti-Muslim hate groups and hate speech run rampant on Facebook with anti-Muslim posts, ads, private groups, and other content.....

Washington Post reports on the lawsuit.

Biden To Nominate First Muslim Federal Judge

On Tuesday, President Biden announced eleven nominees for federal judgeships. Among the nominees is  Zahid Quraishi who is to be nominated to the New Jersey federal district court where he is currently a magistrate judge.  As reported by Fox News, if confirmed by the Senate, Quraishi would become the first Muslim American to serve as a lifetime-appointed federal judge.

Court Rejects Claims of Discrimination Against Yemeni Family Members Of US Citizens

In Almakalani v. McAleenan, (ED NY, March 16, 2021), a New York federal district court rejected a number of challenges to alleged unreasonable delays by the federal government in adjudicating whether 86 family members of petitioners could lawfully immigrate from Yemen as family members of U.S. citizens. Special procedures were promulgated in 2012 for Yemeni family members because of the unreliability of documentation from Yemen. Plaintiffs alleged that the special procedures "are the result of a conspiracy between the Defendants—all members of former President Donald J. Trump’s administration, including former President Trump himself—to halt Yemeni Muslim immigration to the United States."  The court said in part:

Plaintiffs’ only specific factual allegations of animus or intentional discrimination evoke Islamophobic rhetoric in statements and actions attributable to former President Trump and his administration.... Those statements and actions do not specifically relate to the Yemen Guidance or the adjudication of Form I-130 petitions. Moreover, USCIS issued and implemented the Yemen Guidance in 2012, during the administration of former President Barack Obama and prior to any of the statements and actions that allegedly support Plaintiffs’ claims of discriminatory animus....

Plaintiffs claim that Defendants have violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by subjecting Form I-130 petitions brought by and on behalf of Muslim individuals to higher burdens of proof than those petitions brought by or on behalf of non-Muslims....

To the extent that Form I-130 petitions on behalf of Yemeni beneficiaries are adjudicated differently than petitions on behalf of beneficiaries from other countries, Defendants have articulated a logical justification grounded in the unreliability of Yemen’s official processes for maintaining and issuing civil records. That justification is unrelated to matters of religious faith or affiliation, and it provides a rational explanation for the challenged policies and practices. Accordingly, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Malaysian Court Says Christian Publications Can Use the Word "Allah"

Bernama reports that in Malaysia, the Kuala Lumpur High Court has ruled that Christians may use the word "Allah" and three other Arabic words in their religious publications for educational purposes. The court held that a 1986 Home Ministry ban on use of the words was unconstitutional. Publications using the terms must also carry a disclaimer saying that the publication is only for Christians, and must also carry a symbol of a Cross. Litigation on the issue began in 2008. (See prior related posting.)

UPDATE: Daily Express (March 15) reports that the government has filed an appeal in the case.

Discrimination Claim By Muslim Employee of Sheriff's Office Is Dismissed

In Domino v. County of Essex, (D NJ, Feb. 11, 2021), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed, without prejudice, a religious discrimination and hostile work environment claim brought by an African American Muslim male who was employed by the Bureau of Criminal Identification in the Essex County (NJ) Sheriff's Office. Plaintiff complained that a series of actions by the sheriff that variously ordered no beards, limited the length of beards and required documentation from his Imam of plaintiff's religious observance infringed his rights under various statutes and constitutional provisions. The court dismissed plaintiff's Title VII claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. It dismissed his equal protection claim for failure to allege a discriminatory purpose. It also dismissed claims under New Jersey civil rights laws.

Imam Sues Alabama Over Exclusion of Clergy From Execution Chamber

Yesterday a Muslim imam filed suit in an Alabama federal district court challenging prison rules that preclude him from being present in the execution chamber with inmates sentenced to death. The complaint (full text) in Maisonet v. Dunn, (SD AL, filed 2/4/2021), alleges that a change in execution policy in 2019 that now excludes all religious advisors from the execution chamber was adopted

for the purpose of excluding non-Christian religious advisors and prohibiting condemned men of non-Christian faiths from requesting their religious advisors to accompany them in the execution chamber.

The suit contends that the execution policy violates the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses as well as the Alabama Constitution's Religious Freedom Amendment.

Prior to 2019, prison rules required that the prison chaplain-- consistently a mainline Protestant clergyman-- be present in the execution chamber.  That practice was challenged and litigated up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2019 allowed the Alabama execution of a Muslim inmate to proceed without reaching the merits of the challenge to that practice. (See prior posting.) Subsequently in 2019 the Supreme Court ruled against disparate treatment of non-Christian inmates facing execution in a Texas case. (See prior posting.) Courthouse News Service reports on the lawsuit.

Pakistani Agency Threatens U.S. Website Owners With Sanctions Because of Ahmadi Content

 AP reported yesterday that Pakistan’s Telecommunication Authority earlier this month ordered two American men to shut down their U.S.-based website Trueislam.com. According to AP:

The legal notice accuses Zafar and Khan, a lawyer, of violating Pakistani laws for hosting and disseminating content on their website related to members the Ahmadi community who are “not allowed to preach or propagate their faith or invite others to accept their faith."

The notice also threatened a fine of $3.1 million as well as charges under Pakistan's controversial blasphemy law. As explained by AP:

Pakistan’s parliament declared Ahmadis non-Muslims in 1974. Since then, they have repeatedly been targeted by Islamic extremists in the Muslim-majority nation. An Ahmadi can get 10 years in prison for claiming to be a Muslim.

Biden Ends Trump Administration's "Muslim-Bans"

President Joe Biden yesterday issued a Proclamation (full text) revoking the Trump administration's controversial travel bans that mainly impacted Muslim countries. The Proclamation reads in part:

The United States was built on a foundation of religious freedom and tolerance, a principle enshrined in the United States Constitution.  Nevertheless, the previous administration enacted a number of Executive Orders and Presidential Proclamations that prevented certain individuals from entering the United States — first from primarily Muslim countries, and later, from largely African countries.  Those actions are a stain on our national conscience and are inconsistent with our long history of welcoming people of all faiths and no faith at all....

Make no mistake, where there are threats to our Nation, we will address them.  Where there are opportunities to strengthen information-sharing with partners, we will pursue them.  And when visa applicants request entry to the United States, we will apply a rigorous, individualized vetting system.  But we will not turn our backs on our values with discriminatory bans on entry into the United States.

Supreme Court Denies Review In Discrimination Suit By Muslim Flight Attendant

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Stanley v. ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., (Docket No. 20-495, certiorari deied 1/11/2021). (Order List.) In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Muslim flight attendant's religious discrimination claim should have been submitted to arbitration. It also rejected her retaliation claim. The flight attendant sought a religious accommodation so that she would not need to prepare or serve alcohol during flights. At issue in the case was the scope of the Railway Labor Act's mandatory arbitration provisions.

Supreme Court Holds That RFRA Authorizes Damage Actions Against Federal Officials

The U.S. Supreme Court today in Tanzin v. Tanvir, (Sup. Ct., Dec. 10, 2020), held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act permits suits for damages against federal officials in their individual capacities. In an 8-0 opinion (written by Justice Thomas), the court described the case as follows:

Respondents Muhammad Tanvir, Jameel Algibhah, and Naveed Shinwari are practicing Muslims who claim that Federal Bureau of Investigation agents placed them on the No Fly List in retaliation for their refusal to act as informants against their religious communities. Respondents sued various agents in their official capacities, seeking removal from the No Fly List. They also sued the agents in their individual capacities for money damages. According to respondents, the retaliation cost them substantial sums of money: airline tickets wasted and income from job opportunities lost.

Focusing on RFRA's authorization of suits seeking "appropriate relief" against the federal government or government officials, the Court said in part:

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.

Justice Barrett did not take part in the decision.

Indian State Places New Restrictions On Religious Conversion

On Nov. 27, the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh promulgated the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020 (full text) (section-by-section explanation). It outlaws religious conversions entered solely for the purpose of marriage, as well as religious conversions by means of misrepresentations, force, coercion, undue influence, allurement or fraud. Violations are punishable by imprisonment of 1 to 5 years, and a fine of up to $200(US)-- with higher punishments where a minor, a woman or member of a Scheduled Caste are involved, or a mass conversion. 

The new law also sets out an elaborate procedure for anyone who wishes to change his or her religion. The procedure includes a 60-day advance notice to the District Magistrate, followed by a police investigation, and a post-conversion filing. The clergy planning to conduct a conversion must file a notice 30 days in advance. The Hindu reports on the new law.

Time reports on the "love jihad" conspiracy theory that has given impetus to laws such as this one:

Love Jihad is a baseless conspiracy theory that Muslim men are attempting to surreptitiously shift India’s demographic balance by converting Hindu women to Islam through marriage. The narrative has been pushed by Hindu nationalist groups close to India’s ruling BJP since Prime Minister Narendra Modi was first elected in 2014....

The new law comes just two weeks after judges in Uttar Pradesh’s high court overturned a previous decision that religious conversions for the sake of marriage are unacceptable....

The high court case referred to is Priyanshi @ Km. Shamren and others v. State of U.P. and Another, (Allahabad High Court, Nov. 11, 2020). The court said in part:

Right to choose a partner irrespective of caste, creed or religion, is inhered under right to life and personal liberty, an integral part of the Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6th Circuit: Bus Ad Ban Is Unconstituitonal

In American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART), (6th Cir., Oct. 23, 2020), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held unconstitutional a Detroit public transit authority's rejections of an ad aimed at Muslims considering leaving Islam. The ad read:

Fatwa on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Leaving Islam? Got Questions? Get Answers! RefugefromIslam.com.

The ads were rejected under rules banning political ads and ads that hold up a group of people to scorn or ridicule.  The court said in part:

SMART’s ban on “political” ads is unreasonable for the same reason that a state’s ban on “political” apparel at polling places is unreasonable: SMART offers no “sensible basis for distinguishing what may come in from what must stay out.” Mansky, 138 S. Ct. at 1888. Likewise, SMART’s ban on ads that engage in “scorn or ridicule” is not viewpoint neutral for the same reason that a ban on trademarks that disparage people is not viewpoint neutral: For any group, “an applicant may [display] a positive or benign [ad] but not a derogatory one.” Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Report Contends UAE-Bahrain-Israel Deal Could Change Status Quo On Temple Mount

Relying on a Report from the NGO Terrestrial Jerusalem, Al Jazeeera says that a clause in the UAE-Bahrain normalization agreements with Israel could lead to a change in status of the Temple Mount/ Al-Aqsa compound. Under the current status quo arrangements, only Muslims can pray on the Temple Mount/ Al-Aqsa compound.  President Trump's Middle East Peace Plan called for the Temple Mount to be open to worshipers of all faiths. However a later clarification by U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman  said: "The status quo, in the manner that it is observed today, will continue absent an agreement to the contrary." Recent statements by the UAE and Bahrain are now being seen as signaling a breach of the status quo arrangement.

Donald Trump's Peace Plan carefully referred to the Temple Mount as "Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif."  The August 13 Joint Statement by the UAE, Israel and the United States as well as the September 11 Joint Statement by Bahrain, Israel and the U.S. include the following statement which refers only to Al Aqsa Mosque:

As set forth in the Vision for Peace, all Muslims who come in peace may visit and pray at the Al Aqsa Mosque, and Jerusalem’s other holy sites should remain open for peaceful worshippers of all faiths.

According to the Terrestrial Jerusalem Report:

Israel defines Al Aqsa as the structure of the mosque, as does the wording of the Statement, whereas Muslims define Al Aqsa as the entire esplanade of Haram al Sharif/the Temple Mount. Consequently, according to Israel (and apparently to the United States), anything on the Mount that is not the structure of the mosque is defined as "one of Jerusalem's other holy sites", and open to prayer by all – including Jews. Accordingly, Jews may now be permitted to pray on the Temple Mount, just not in the mosque....

Both the Israeli Prime Minister and the US negotiating team fully understand the significance of every word and every nuance relating to Jerusalem in general, and to the Temple Mount/Haram Al Sharif in particular. Consequently, this choice of terminology is neither random nor a misstep, and cannot seen as anything but an intentional, albeit surreptitious attempt to leave the door wide open to Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount, thereby radically changing the status quo.

Muslim Woman Sues After She Was Forced To Remove Her Hijab

Last week, a Muslim woman sued a Michigan county and two State Police officers for requiring her to remove her hijab when she was booked and arraigned on an outstanding warrant after a traffic stop. The process caused her to be viewed by a number of men with he head uncovered, in violation of her religious beliefs. The complaint (full text) in Cave v. Genesee County, (ED MI, filed 8/26/2020) asserts violations of the Free Exercise Clause, RLUIPA and the Equal Protection Clause. NBC25 News reports on the lawsuit.

10th Circuit: Inmate Has Equal Protection, But Not RFRA, Claim Over Prayer Space

 In Tenison v. Byrd, (10th Cir., Aug. 28, 2020), the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an Oklahoma federal district court's dismissal of a Muslim inmate's claim that his equal protection rights were violated when he was not allowed to pray in the prison day room. Plaintiff alleged that Christian prayer was allowed in day rooms. The court concluded:

If believed, Tenison’s evidence is sufficient for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that Christians seeking to practice their religion in the dayroom deliberately are treated differently (and more favorably) than Muslims.

The court, however, rejected plaintiff's claim that his free exercise rights under the 1st Amendment and RFRA were  substantially burdened, saying in part:

We are not persuaded, however, that requiring Tenison to return to his cell to pray either prevents him from praying or subjects him to substantial pressure not to pray. Tenison is not prevented from praying; he simply must plan his dayroom time around the times he must be in his cell to pray. And having to forgo an unspecified amount of dayroom time does not amount to substantial pressure not to return to his cell to pray.

11th Circuit: Shame To Muslim Family From Assault Allegations Allows Woman To Proceed As Jane Doe

In Doe v. Neversome, (11 Cir., July 30, 2020), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that that a Florida federal district court abused its discretion when it refused to allow a plaintiff in a sexual assault and battery action against a musical celebrity. The court said in part:

Here Ms. Doe ... asserts that because she is from a “devout Muslim family,” the “very nature of her allegations would be sufficient to bring harm to [herself] and shame to her family under the cultural/religious traditions that her family practices.”... The district court erred by treating Ms. Doe’s motion as merely alleging personal embarrassment, without accounting for what she actually alleged or considering our social stigma cases.

We also note that, under our precedent, the district court may have too easily discounted evidence that Ms. Doe would be subject to threats and harassment if she were required to proceed under her real name.

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Various Challenges To Terrorism Watch List Practices Can Move Ahead

In El Ali v. Barr, (D MD, July 20, 2020), a Maryland federal district court allowed some of the plaintiffs to move ahead with challenges to practices involving inclusion on terrorism watch lists. The court explained:

Plaintiffs are 39 individuals—37 U.S. citizens and two legal residents—who claim that inclusion in the Government’s Terrorism Screening Database (“TSDB”) and various related Watchlists impair or prohibit air and land travel in the United States. Plaintiffs allege that their list status, or status by association with those on a list, subjects them to constitutionally impermissible detentions, searches, and screening at airports and land border entries, or in some cases, denial of air travel altogether. Relatedly, Plaintiffs allege that their list status has burdened their families and businesses, and inflicted other wide-ranging harms.

Among the claims that can move ahead are claims of intentional religious and racial discrimination, as well as Religious Freedom Restoration Act complaints that individuals were interrogated about their Muslim religious practices, and that interrogations and detentions interfered with the ability to perform Umrah and Hajj. The court dismissed the claim that offers to clear up plaintiffs' problems if they would act as FBI informants imposed a substantial burden on their religious exercise. CAIR issued a press release announcing the decision.