WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court Judge on Monday seemed reluctant to block the claims of religious discrimination brought by three Muslim men from California who accused the FBI to carry out illegal supervision on them after the United States attack on September 11, 2001.
Judge heard about two hours of argument Pull the FBI from the 2019 High Court decision that allows various claims made by men to continue the lawsuit.
Some of the nine judges appear to tend to rule narrowly supporting the FBI without removing all claims.
The judge must decide whether to reject most claims based on state secret privilege called the government, a legal doctrine sometimes confirms when the national security interest is called.
The US High Court of the San Francisco-based circuit in 2020 ruled against the FBI at the time, even though the Supreme Court could cancel the decision.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch said there was a “pretty good argument” that the government used state recrats privileges as a way to block a lawsuit without giving full charges.
Liberal Judge Stephen Breyer said it would be early to dismiss the claims without the trial judge to get the opportunity to review certain documents related to this case.
“I mean there must be a way to see information …
and decide what to do,” said Bryer.
The verdict is due at the end of June.
The 2011 lawsuit accused the FBI to infiltrate South California and target American Muslims to supervise because of their religion.
It accused the FBI involved in religious discrimination which violates the first amendment of the US Constitution by targeting Muslims, and violating the prohibition of the fourth amendment on search and unreasonable seizures.
The plaintiff is: US citizen born Eritrean Yassir Fazaga, a priest at the Orange County Islamic Foundation at Mission Viejo; US citizens of Original Birth Ali Uddin Malik, who attended the Irvine Islamic Center; And Yasser Abdel Rahim, a resident of US from Egypt who also attended the Irvine Islamic Center.
They are represented by American Civil Liberties Union and others.
The lawsuit focuses on the 14-month period in 2006 and 2007 when the FBI pays an informant named Craig Monteilh to gather information about Muslims as part of Post-September.
11 Investigation of counterterrorism.
Monteilh met with Muslims in South California, adopting Muslim names and said he wanted to convert to Islam, according to court papers.
Monteilh also recorded conversations and conducted supervision, according to court papers.
This arrangement was decomposed when Monteilh began making a statement about wanting to take acts of violence.
Community members reported it to the local police and obtained the demand for detention, according to court papers.
In the 2012 decision, a federal judge rejected the claim against the FBI, determining that they were banned under state recrats’ privileges.
The judge did allow claims to accuse several individual FBI agents violating foreign intelligence supervision laws, known as FISA, which regulates how the government conducts electronic supervision.
The 9th circuit decided that religious claims otherwise must be analyzed under the FISA law part that allowed the judge to review the legality of supervision.
The 9th circuit also allows search claims that violate the law, not on the problem in front of the Supreme Court, to move forward.
The Supreme Court in October heard arguments in other cases involving state secret rights.
In this case, the government tried to prevent two former CIA contractors in question in a criminal investigation in Poland for their role in interrogating al-Qaeda figures who were suspected of being repeatedly experienced a boatboard, a form of simulation sinking widely considered.
become torture.