RonZeplin
Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2011
- Messages
- 4,512
It would be nice to see Qualified Immunity take a hit, but it's not likely IMO with recent statist justice appointments such as Kavinaugh, not to mention the older ones. 
Lawyer representing Muslim men tells court his clients are entitled to monetary damages, which he argued would deter future abuse of religious rights
More than 13 years ago, FBI agents walked into the store of Muhammad Tanvir, a legal permanent resident from Pakistan in New York, asking him to spy on the Muslim community. When he refused, he subsequently found himself on the federal government's No-Fly list.
On Tuesday, the US Supreme Court heard Tanvir's lawyer argue that he and others who faced similar treatment are entitled to compensation from federal officials who allegedly violated their religious beliefs.
"Federal agents put my clients on the No Fly list because they refused to spy on innocent coreligionists in violation of their Islamic beliefs. My clients lost precious years with loved ones, plus jobs and educational opportunities," Ramzi Kassem, a lawyer representing Tanvir and two others, told the court.
The legal battle started in 2013 when CLEAR, an advocacy initiative at the City University of New York (CUNY), sued the federal government on behalf of Tanvir. Soon after the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and three other Muslim men on the No-Fly list joined the lawsuit.
"This impermissible abuse of the No Fly List has forced plaintiffs to choose between their constitutionally protected right to travel, on the one hand, and their First Amendment rights on the other," the original legal complaint, filed in a US district court in New York, reads.
'Agents remain free to repeat what they did'
As the lower court was gearing up to hear the case in 2015, the government introduced some reforms to add transparency to the No Fly list and informed all four plaintiffs that they are no longer on it, prompting the district judge to dismiss the lawsuit. But CLEAR and CCR appealed.
An appellate court sided with the plaintiffs that the district court should hear the case, ruling that Tanvir and the others may be entitled to damages. One of the original plaintiffs had withdrawn from the lawsuit during the appeal process.
The US government, in turn, launched its own appeal, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
On Tuesday, Kassem, who is the director of CLEAR, stressed that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a 1993 US law, allows victims to sue government officials in their personal capacity in order to obtain compensation for mistreatment. He argued that removing his clients from the No Fly list is not enough.
"Without damages as a deterrent, petitioners and other agents remain free to repeat what they did here - flout RFRA until challenged in court and then back off," Kassem told the court's justices.
A government lawyer had told the high court that RFRA does not entitle plaintiffs to monetary damages or to sue individual officials. Ending the alleged violation, known as injunctive relief, should suffice, the government representative argued.
Targeted because they're Muslim
Muslim advocates have long decried the murky use of the No Fly list against their community. It has deprived people of their ability to travel without presenting evidence against them in what critics describe as a violation of due process and equal treatment under the law.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/muslims-no-fly-fbi-entitled-damages-rfra-supreme-court
Lawyer representing Muslim men tells court his clients are entitled to monetary damages, which he argued would deter future abuse of religious rights
More than 13 years ago, FBI agents walked into the store of Muhammad Tanvir, a legal permanent resident from Pakistan in New York, asking him to spy on the Muslim community. When he refused, he subsequently found himself on the federal government's No-Fly list.
On Tuesday, the US Supreme Court heard Tanvir's lawyer argue that he and others who faced similar treatment are entitled to compensation from federal officials who allegedly violated their religious beliefs.
"Federal agents put my clients on the No Fly list because they refused to spy on innocent coreligionists in violation of their Islamic beliefs. My clients lost precious years with loved ones, plus jobs and educational opportunities," Ramzi Kassem, a lawyer representing Tanvir and two others, told the court.
The legal battle started in 2013 when CLEAR, an advocacy initiative at the City University of New York (CUNY), sued the federal government on behalf of Tanvir. Soon after the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and three other Muslim men on the No-Fly list joined the lawsuit.
"This impermissible abuse of the No Fly List has forced plaintiffs to choose between their constitutionally protected right to travel, on the one hand, and their First Amendment rights on the other," the original legal complaint, filed in a US district court in New York, reads.
'Agents remain free to repeat what they did'
As the lower court was gearing up to hear the case in 2015, the government introduced some reforms to add transparency to the No Fly list and informed all four plaintiffs that they are no longer on it, prompting the district judge to dismiss the lawsuit. But CLEAR and CCR appealed.
An appellate court sided with the plaintiffs that the district court should hear the case, ruling that Tanvir and the others may be entitled to damages. One of the original plaintiffs had withdrawn from the lawsuit during the appeal process.
The US government, in turn, launched its own appeal, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
On Tuesday, Kassem, who is the director of CLEAR, stressed that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a 1993 US law, allows victims to sue government officials in their personal capacity in order to obtain compensation for mistreatment. He argued that removing his clients from the No Fly list is not enough.
"Without damages as a deterrent, petitioners and other agents remain free to repeat what they did here - flout RFRA until challenged in court and then back off," Kassem told the court's justices.
A government lawyer had told the high court that RFRA does not entitle plaintiffs to monetary damages or to sue individual officials. Ending the alleged violation, known as injunctive relief, should suffice, the government representative argued.
Targeted because they're Muslim
Muslim advocates have long decried the murky use of the No Fly list against their community. It has deprived people of their ability to travel without presenting evidence against them in what critics describe as a violation of due process and equal treatment under the law.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/muslims-no-fly-fbi-entitled-damages-rfra-supreme-court
