Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga
Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued November 8, 2021 Decided March 4, 2022 | |
Full case name | Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al. v. Yassir Fazaga, et al. |
Docket no. | 20-828 |
Citations | 595 U.S. ___ (more) |
Argument | Oral argument |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | Alito, joined by unanimous |
Laws applied | |
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 |
Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga, 595 U.S. ___ (2022), was a
Background
In 2006, the FBI and the Orange County, California Joint Terrorism Task Force ran Operation Flex, a counterterrorism operation, by recruiting a fitness instructor, Craig Monteilh, to become an informant. Monteilh, under an assumed name, pretended to convert to Islam and joined the Islamic Center of Irvine (ICOI) in Irvine, California.[1] In addition to his own gathering of information, Monteilh wore and planted recording devices throughout the mosque and in homes and businesses of ICOI members that Monteilh came to know personally, passing on the information to the FBI. After about a year, Monteilh began making statements about taking violent action while in the presence of ICOI. He was reported to the police and put under a restraining order from ICOI. The FBI lost confidence in Monteilh and ended the operation.[2][3]
Monteilh was convicted of grand theft in connection with the distribution of steroids in a separate matter in 2008, and ended up in California state prison. In April 2008, he was stabbed repeatedly in prison after being labelled a snitch. Monteilh filed a lawsuit against the FBI, stating that they failed to protect him after using him for their investigation, and made numerous details of Operation Flex public in 2009 prior to filing his suit against the FBI in 2010.[4] Monteilh also spoke to these details of Operation Flex in a 2009 case the FBI brought against Ahmad Niazi, an Afghan immigrant that Monteilh had attempted to blackmail to become an FBI informant, though charges against Niazi were eventually dropped.[5]
Lower courts
Three members of ICOI, using Monteilh's information, filed a lawsuit in the
The plaintiffs appealed to the
Supreme Court
The FBI filed a petition for a
The Court ruled unanimously on March 4, 2022, reversing the Ninth Circuit and remanding the case. The opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, stated that Section 1806(f) of FISA does not override the state secrets privilege, as was ruled by the Ninth Circuit.[14]
Impact
In a 2013 book on transparency in legal contexts, Bianchi noted that although public opinion supports government transparency (even when it involves security-sensitive governmental law enforcement), there are "dark sides of transparency".[15] In an opinion piece in 2014 for Al Jazeera, assistant professor of history Abdullah Al-Arian at Georgetown University criticized the use of informants in Fazaga.[16]
References
- ^ a b Neidig, Harper (June 7, 2021). "Supreme Court to hear case over FBI's surveillance of California mosques". TheHill. Retrieved June 8, 2021.
- ^ a b c d e f g "Fazaga v. FBI". Harvard Law Review. 33: 1774. 2020.
- ^ a b Hurley, Laurence (June 7, 2021). "U.S. Supreme Court takes up FBI bid to block Muslim civil rights suit". Reuters. Retrieved June 7, 2021.
- Orange County Register. Retrieved June 7, 2021.
- ^ a b Harris, Paul (March 20, 2012). "The ex-FBI informant with a change of heart: 'There is no real hunt. It's fixed'". The Guardian. Retrieved June 7, 2021.
- ^
S Rushin (2011). "The judicial response to mass police surveillance" (PDF). U. Ill. JL Tech. & Pol'y. criminalactivity, [but] instead it gathered the information simply because the targets were Muslim.' ...Fazaga v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, No. SACV11-00301 (C.D. Cal. February 22, 2011). ...
- ^ Patrik Jonsson (staff writer) (February 23, 2011). "Muslim group sues FBI over surveillance at California mosques: Council on American-Islamic Relations and ACLU say a paid FBI informant violated the First Amendment rights of worshipers at several California mosques, targeting the most devout. They sued the FBI Wednesday". The Christian Science Monitor.
- ^
Bridget Freeland (February 24, 2011). "Muslims Say FBI Informant Dealt Drugs While Snooping on Believers' Sex Lives". destruction of the informationthe FBI [allegedly] obtained illegally. Its lead counsel is Peter Bibring with the ACLU of Southern California...
- ^ Matt Coker (August 5, 2011). "Attorney General Eric Holder Chastised for Move to Quash Suit Against FBI for Spying on Muslims in OC". OC Weekly.
- ^
SJ Rascoff (2012). "Establishing official Islam? The law and strategy of counter-radicalization" (PDF). p. 158 and 189.
...
Attorney General of the United States at 1–2, Fazaga v. FBI, No. SA11-CV0-00301CJC (C.D. Cal. February 22, 2011) (asserting the state secrets privilege in a suit alleging First Amendment violations through FBI surveillance of a mosque). ... - ISBN 9780739172476. Retrieved February 7, 2017.
- Courthouse News. July 20, 2020. Retrieved June 7, 2021.
- ^ Stohr, Greg (June 7, 2021). "State Secrets Clash Draws U.S. Supreme Court Review". Bloomberg News. Retrieved June 7, 2021.
- ^ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-828_5ie6.pdf
- ^
Andrea Bianchi and Anne Peters, ed. (2013). "Transparency in international law". p. 2.
...In contrast, the opposites of transparency, such as secrecy and confidentiality, have taken on a negative connotation... largely considered as manifestations of power and, often, of its abuse. ...we no longer see why one should be secretive about their business, whatever the latter is. All the more so if the activity in question concerns the administration of the public good. Not even in such areas as security and public order is public opinion particularly in favour of tolerating restrictions on transparency. The State secrets privilege that is often invoked in courtrooms to shield government officials against scrutiny in security-sensitive cases causes most people to frown. ...the recent decision concerning an FBI programme of surveillance on the civilian population; US Central District Court of California, Southern Division, Fazaga v. FBI, Decision of 14 August 2012, 2012 WL 3327092. ... Overall, the world to which we aspire is a transparent one. The purpose of the following remarks is to call the wisdom of this aspiration into question by investigating a few of the dark sides of transparency...
- ^ Abdullah Al-Arian (assistant professor of history at Georgetown University, School of Foreign Service in Qatar) (July 21, 2014). "The informants: Manufacturing terror: The use of informants to target communities is one of the most alarming trends to have developed since 9/11". Al Jazeera.
External links
- Text of Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga, No. 20-828, ___ U.S. ___ (2022) is available from: Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion)