Court Rules Against Muslim Men in No-Fly List Case Involving FBI

IQNA – A U.S. appeals court has ruled that three Muslim men cannot sue FBI agents who placed them on the "no-fly list" after they declined to become government informants.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan held that 16 agents involved are protected by qualified immunity, which shields federal officials from liability unless their conduct clearly violates established constitutional rights.

The case was brought by Muhammad Tanvir, Jameel Algibhah, and Naveed Shinwari, who were placed on the list in 2013 after refusing to spy on U.S. Muslim communities.

They argued that the restrictions violated their religious beliefs and caused significant harm, including job losses, damaged reputations, and restrictions on travel that kept them from visiting family in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen.

Circuit Judge Gerard Lynch, writing for a three-judge panel, acknowledged what he described as "improper behavior" by the agents, who he said "falsely and in bad faith" accused the men of terrorism to coerce them into becoming informants. However, Lynch noted that the agents had no reason to believe they were infringing on the men's religious beliefs because these beliefs were not explicitly conveyed to them.

“The agents’ behavior was improper,” Lynch wrote, “regardless of whether they knew of the men’s particular religious beliefs.”

The men were eventually removed from the list and sought damages under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which allows individuals to seek redress for government actions that burden their religious practices.

In a 2020 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the men could seek damages, but did not address the issue of qualified immunity.

In its Tuesday ruling, the appeals court upheld a February 2023 dismissal of the case by U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams, concluding that the agents’ conduct did not breach clearly established rights at the time.

A spokesperson for U.S. Attorney Damian Williams, representing the agents, declined to comment on the ruling. The men’s legal representation, including the Center for Constitutional Rights, expressed disappointment in the decision.

In a statement, Tanvir remarked, “This case was never just about money. We fought for a decade so people would know what happened to us and so the same thing would not happen to others. Even if this decision does not give us everything, we still won.”

Source: Agencies