Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters] – The U.S. Supreme Court did not block three Californian Muslim men who claimed the FBI illegally monitored their religious activities following 9/11 attacks.

In the appeal by the FBI of the 2019 lower court ruling that allowed various claims to proceed in the suit, the justices heard approximately two hours worth of arguments. Some justices appeared to favor the FBI, while not addressing all claims.

It is up to the justices whether they reject most of the claims made against the government based upon the so-called State Secrets privilege. This legal doctrine can sometimes be invoked in cases where national security concerns are involved. San Francisco’s 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2020 ruled in favor of the FBI, although the Supreme Court may reverse that ruling.

Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch claimed that there’s a “pretty good argument” the government used the state secrets privilege in order to prevent the lawsuit, without giving full airing of the allegations.

Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer declared it premature to dismiss the claim without giving the trial judge a chance for proper review of certain documents.

Breyer stated, “My point was there should be an easy way to see the information and then decide what to do.”

By June 30, a ruling will be available.

According to the lawsuit, in 2011, FBI infiltrated Southern California mainstream mosques and targeted Muslim Americans in surveillance operations. It accused the FBI of engaging in religious discrimination https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-takes-up-fbi-bid-block-muslim-civil-rights-suit-2021-06-07 in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment by targeting Muslims, as well as violating the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

They are Eritrean-born U.S. citizens Yassir Fazaaga and Ali Uddin Malik. Ali Uddin Malik was a native-born U.S citizen who both attended the Islamic Center of Irvine. Yasser Abudel Rahim is a U.S. permanent residence from Egypt. These plaintiffs are represented by American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations.

In the lawsuit, the FBI paid Craig Monteilh an informant for information about Muslims. This was during a 14 month period between 2006-2007. According to court papers, Monteilh was able to meet with Muslims in Southern California and adopted a Muslim identity, claiming that he would convert to Islam. According to court papers, Monteilh recorded conversations and performed surveillance.

After Monteilh made statements about wanting violence, the agreement was broken. Court papers show that community members had reported Monteilh’s behavior to police, and they obtained a temporary restraining order.

A federal judge dismissed all claims against FBI in 2012, ruling that the claimants were not allowed to file them under the state secrets privilege. However, the judge granted claims against some FBI agents for violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act known as FISA. This law regulates how government conducts electronic spying.

9th Circuit decided that religious claims should be reviewed under an FISA section which allows judges to examine the legality and legitimacy of surveillance. The 9th Circuit granted permission to the Supreme Court to continue with the illegal search claims.

The Supreme Court in October heard arguments https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-justices-ask-why-guantanamo-detainee-cannot-testify-2021-10-06 in another case involving the state secrets privilege. The government seeks to stop two ex-CIA contractors being interrogated in a Polish criminal investigation over their involvement in the interrogation of a high-ranking al Qaeda suspect. They were repeatedly subject to waterboarding which is widely considered torture.