Supreme Court Says Muslim Men Can Sue The FBI For Placing Them On The No-Fly List For Refusing To Become Informants
from the faith-based-harassment dept
The FBI really enjoys its take on the War on Terror. Starting with the hassling of Muslims at airports and border entries, the FBI cultivates a large collection of confidential informants. These informants then find pliable individuals to target with extra attention, pushing them towards threatening to engage in violence. Then the FBI swoops in to arrest these supposed "terrorists" -- ones that often seem unable to stay gainfully employed, much less capable of carrying out terrorist attacks. The FBI's favorite targets are impressionable Muslim men with mental health issues -- ones its agents and informants radicalize right into jail cells.
It all starts at our nation's airports. If Muslims want to travel in and out of the United States (or just travel within the US), federal agents are always on hand to pressure them into becoming informants. Veiled threats are made and these targets are subjected to invasive searches and other harassment every time they set foot in an airport.
In some cases, Muslim men were placed on the "no fly" list simply for refusing to become government informants. A lawsuit filed in 2014 accused the FBI of retaliating against several Muslims who resisted the FBI's overtures. The district court ruled against the plaintiffs but the Second Circuit Court of Appeals revived the lawsuit in 2018, saying the men had sufficiently alleged violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The government can't target people simply because of their chosen religion, but that's exactly what appears to be happening.
The case made its way to the Supreme Court and the nation's top court has sided [PDF] with the plaintiffs. The lawsuit can proceed and the FBI agents can be held accountable for violating the RFRA.
The government tried to argue the statute does not provide for lawsuits against federal officers in the personal capacity. Wrong, says the Supreme Court. The statute clearly states lawsuits can be brought against individuals, rather than their agency or the federal government as a whole.
We first have to determine if injured parties can sue Government officials in their personal capacities. RFRA’s text provides a clear answer: They can. Persons may sue and obtain relief “against a government,” §2000bb–1(c), which is defined to include “a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting under color of law) of the United States.” §2000bb–2(1) (emphasis added).
The Government urges us to limit lawsuits against officials to suits against them in their official, not personal, capacities. A lawsuit seeking damages from employees in their individual capacities, the Government argues, is not really “against a government” because relief “can be executed only against the official’s personal assets.” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U. S. 159, 166 (1985).
The problem with this otherwise plausible argument is that Congress supplanted the ordinary meaning of “government” with a different, express definition. [...] A “government,” under RFRA, extends beyond the term’s plain meaning to include officials. And the term “official” does not refer solely to an office, but rather to the actual person “who is invested with an office.”
The Court then looks at whether or not damages can be pursued. This isn't a normal case alleging First or Fourth Amendment violations. The government argued this means damages can't be awarded. Again, the Supreme Court says the government is wrong.
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. [...] it would be odd to construe RFRA in a manner that prevents courts from awarding such relief. Had Congress wished to limit the remedy to that degree, it knew how to do so.
If federal agencies want the law changed to shield them from accountability, they'll have to ask Congress to "fix" this perceived "wrong." The Court isn't going to get into the business of legislating from the bench (at least not in this case).
To be sure, there may be policy reasons why Congress may wish to shield Government employees from personal liability, and Congress is free to do so. But there are no constitutional reasons why we must do so in its stead.
It's an 8-0 shutout in favor of the plaintiffs who are now allowed -- six years after they filed their lawsuit -- to start holding the FBI accountable for its violation of their religious rights.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: confidential informants, fbi, muslims, no fly list, scotus, supreme court
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Could Be a Slippery Slope
If this continues blackmail might become illegal!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quick settlement in a couple of months, if not sooner - bet on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No bet, that'd be like betting on whether or not the sun will rise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pleasant surprise!
It's cold comfort to know that even justices appointed by Trump adhere to the rule of law, something which Trump does not do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pleasant surprise!
"JUSTICE BARRETT took no part in the consideration or decision of this case." I don't know whether that means she's in some kind of probationary period, the other justices are freezing her out, or she just opted out of this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pleasant surprise!
If you look at the decision, you will see that it was argued on Oct 6. ACB wasn't confirmed until Oct 26. She just wasn't a part of the court at the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Pleasant surprise!
Ah. Thanks for clearing that up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pleasant surprise!
As I understand it half the reason she was being pushed so hard is because she would be willing to just recuse herself from any potentially damaging case for the right wing, with her religious beliefs as the excuse, and thus require larger majority agreements to get anything progressive through the courts without explicitly opposing the issue.
So, while that's not a problem here, expect to see that in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pleasant surprise!
Probably not. The basis of her selection and approval by the senate majority was her earlier writing favoring particular results. At the confirmation hearing, of course, she had to mouth the usual platitudes about dealing with particular cases, but few people actually believe that to be her intention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'We're the FBI, the laws aren't supposed to apply to us!'
Well that must have been an unpleasant surprise for the FBI, being told that no, they cannot engage in extortion freely and without risk.
I look forward to them desperately scrambling for a settlement now that they'd been told that they can't just dump the whole thing on the taxpayers and that the correct people might end up on the hook for their actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Holy Shit
... "hassling" molsems??
Nooooooo!!!!!! Oh, the humanity!!! Moslems were hassled!!! HASSLED!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Holy Shit
Yes, they were. If you think that the US government is fine to be hassling its citizens due to a religious test, you might not understand the values the country is supposedly founded upon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Holy Shit
Am I to assume that you agree the government should be allowed to extort its populace?
Are you an informant?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Holy Shit
He’s not smart enough.
Which means it’s 50/50 weather he is they look for dumb people.
Not that it matters. He’s still expendable to people lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Holy Shit
"Weather"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Holy Shit
Nobody said the Feebs were hassling the 'populace' aka Americans.
He said 'moslems'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Holy Shit
Yes, and Muslim Americans, born and raised in the US, exist.
Like I said - if you're going to try and implement a religious test for whether or not American citizens can be harassed and extorted, you might not understand the values your country was explicitly founded upon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Holy Shit
"Oh, the humanity!!! Moslems were hassled!!! HASSLED!"
So...you're OK with US Law Enforcement blackmailing people who refuse to become unpaid government agents?
Would you find the same acceptable if it concerned Christian people?
If that's so you have a problem because you are a dictionary-definition fascist wiping your ass on that rag you call a constitution.
If that isn't so you are just a bigot...and wiping your ass on that rag you call a constitution.
Somehow it's not unexpected to find that most of the alt-right commenters just can't keep themselves from proving themselves complete assholes irrelevant or harmful to the democracy of the nation unfortunate enough to host them..in one single sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]