US Supreme Court hears religious discrimination case over 'state secrets'



The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a religious discrimination case involving an FBI operation at a California mosque. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo

Nov. 8 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments in a high-profile religious discrimination case that could decide whether the government can withhold information in civil lawsuits by relying on "state secrets privilege."

The case --- Federal Bureau of Investigation vs. Fazaga -- stems from a series of events in 2006, when the FBI and the Orange County, Calif., Joint Terrorism Task Force conducted a yearlong counterterrorism operation at a mosque.

The plaintiffs are Yassir Fazaga, a former imam at the Orange County Islamic Foundation, Ali Uddin Malik and Yasser Abdel Rahim, members of the Islamic Center of Irvine. They allege the government and its agents illegally targeted members of the faith communities because of their Muslim religion and are urging the high court to allow their case to move forward

The case is on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which in 2019 reversed a 2012 district court decision that dismissed the case in which the federal government invoked the state secrets privilege.

The three plaintiffs alleged religious discrimination, but the government has argued that those claims should be dismissed since they could result in divulging secret information that might endanger national security.
At issue is whether Section 1806(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 displaces the state secrets privilege and authorizes a district court to resolve, in camera and ex parte, the merits of a lawsuit challenging the lawfulness of government surveillance by considering the privileged evidence.

In 2006, the Brennan Center for Justice implored Congress to stop what it called the abuse of state-secrets privilege used primarily during the administrations of President George W. Bush following the Sept. 11 attacks and President Barack Obama.


High court to hear secrets case over Muslim surveillance

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is preparing to hear a case about the government’s ability to get lawsuits thrown out of court by claiming they would reveal secrets that threaten national security.

The case before the high court Monday involves a group of Muslim men from Southern California. They filed a class action lawsuit claiming that the FBI spied on them and hundreds of others in a surveillance operation following the Sept. 11 attacks. The group, represented by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union and others, claimed religious discrimination and violations of other rights, saying they were spied on solely because of their faith.

A lower court dismissed almost all their claims after the government said allowing the case to go forward could reveal “state secrets” — whom the government was investigating and why. But an appeals court reversed that decision, saying the lower court first should have privately examined the evidence the government said was state secrets to see if the alleged surveillance was unlawful.

The Biden administration, like the Trump administration before it, is telling the justices that decision is wrong.

The case involves a confidential informant, Craig Monteilh, the FBI used from 2006 to 2007. Monteilh pretended to be a new convert to Islam as a way to become part of Southern California’s Muslim community.

Monteilh told people he was a fitness consultant, but he was really working as part of a surveillance program known as Operation Flex. Monteilh regularly attended the Islamic Center of Irvine in Orange County and has said that he was told to collect as much information on as many people as possible. He gathered names and phone numbers and secretly recorded thousands of hours of conversations and hundreds of hours of video using a camera concealed in a shirt button.

Ultimately Monteilh’s handlers told him to ask about jihad and express a willingness to engage in violence. Those questions caused members of the community to report him to the FBI and other authorities and seek a restraining order against him.

The FBI has acknowledged Monteilh was an informant, and the story was covered in the news media including on the National Public Radio show “This American Life.”

Three of the men Monteilh allegedly recorded sued seeking damages and asking the government to destroy or return the information it had gathered.

This is the second case the court has heard involving the state secrets privilege since beginning its new term in October. Last month the court heard a case involving a Guantanamo Bay detainee that also involved the states secrets privilege.