Justices hear oral arguments in case regarding FBI surveillance of Calif. Muslim community

carleyshaffer1November 9, 2021

WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEPTEMBER 28: The Guardian or Authority of Law, created by sculptor James Earle Fraser, rests on the side of the U.S. Supreme Court on September 28, 2020 in Washington, D.C (Photo by Al Drago/Getty Images)

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 10:34 AM PT – Tuesday, November 9, 2021

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments for a case involving allegations the FBI discriminated against a California Muslim community with their surveillance efforts. U.S. Justices seemed puzzled at the questions surrounding the case.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments for FBI v. Fazaga, which revolves around an FBI investigation that occurred in the mid-2000’s. During the operation, an agent posed as a Muslim convert, infiltrated and ultimately electronically surveilled a Muslim community in Orange County, California.

However, a trio of Muslims allegedly thought the agent’s behavior was peculiar and reported him to the FBI, claiming the agent attempted to incite violence. The trio eventually sued the bureau and the agents involved, alleging the agency unlawfully targeted the community based on their religion.

A U.S. district court dismissed the case siding with the federal government’s claims that the evidence accrued during the operation amounts to state secrets. They also claimed any unauthorized eyes on the records would harm America’s national security.

However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision and ordered the lower court to review the government’s evidence, behind closed doors if need be, and determine whether the FBI’s evidence was collected in violation of the U.S. Constitution or federal law.

Our government should not be able to evade the Constitution by invoking national security.@UCLA_CILP lawyer Ahilan Arulanatham breaks down the importance of our upcoming Supreme Court case FBI v. Fazaga. pic.twitter.com/wduXcvbaey

— ACLU (@ACLU) November 4, 2021

Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler argued in front of the Supreme Court that the Ninth Circuit misinterpreted federal law. Although, Justice Stephen Breyer thought looking at the evidence would put the case in clearer view.

“Here, we have a motion to dismiss, and all we have is that. And before we decide whether the case should have been dismissed or not dismissed, doesn’t the district judge and perhaps the court of appeals and for all I know, maybe us, have to look at this information?”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed to concur with this sentiment when pressing the attorney for the Muslim respondents. But, the justices didn’t suggest they would make a sweeping decision on the scope of government’s state secret privilege claims.

This marks the second case where justices heard issues of state secrets after hearing a case in October regarding what information the CIA tried to squeeze from a Guantanamo Bay detainee.

In the meantime, the justices will hash out the details of the case before handing down a ruling as early as June 2022.