How the FBI Spied on Orange County Muslims And Attempted to Get Away With It
In 2006, the FBI ordered an informant to pose as a Muslim convert and spy on the congregants of several large, diverse mosques in Orange County, California. The agent, Craig Monteilh, professed his conversion before hundreds of congregants during the month of Ramadan. Renaming himself “Farouk,” the informant quickly made friends and impressed members of the community with his seeming devotion. The whole time, he was secretly recording conversations and filming inside people’s homes, mosques, and businesses using devices hidden in everyday objects, like the keychain fob of his car keys.
Plaintiff Sheik Yassir Fazaga.
John Mofield
Among those subjected to FBI spying were Sheik Yassir Fazaga, the imam of the Orange County Islamic Foundation (OCIF), and Ali Uddin Malik and Yasser Abdelrahim, congregants at the Islamic Center of Irvine (ICOI). Together, they sued the FBI in 2011 for unlawfully targeting Muslim community members in violation of their constitutional rights to religious freedom and privacy. The FBI attempted to stop the litigation of the plaintiffs’ religious discrimination claims by arguing that further proceedings could reveal state secrets. After an appeals court ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor in 2019, the FBI appealed to the Supreme Court, which will hear the case on Nov. 8.
Ahead of their Supreme Court hearing, the three plaintiffs joined At Liberty to discuss how FBI surveillance impacted their lives and communities, how the harmful effects linger 15 years later, and what they hope to achieve in challenging the FBI.
In 2006, Monteilh reached out to Sheik Fazaga to discuss his apparent interest in converting to Islam. He said he was of Syrian and French descent and wanted to embrace his roots. Days later, he announced his conversion at Friday prayer, reciting the shahada (the Islamic declaration of faith) before hundreds of congregants at the mosque. Monteilh renamed himself Farouk and started attending prayers multiple times per day, every day.
“6:00 a.m all the way to 10:00 p.m.,” says Hussam Ayloush of the Council on American-Islamic Relations – California (CAIR-CA), one of the organizations serving as co-counsel on the case, along with the ACLU. “That's a lot of dedication to come to these prayers. Very impressive.”
Plaintiff Ali Uddin Malik.
Wey Wang
Word spread about the new convert within ICOI and other mosques in the Orange County area, which Monteilh also frequented on a regular basis. Congregants reached out to him to introduce themselves, buying him books on Islam, showing him the movements of prayers, taking him out for tea, and inviting him into their homes for dinners, where he would often meet congregants’ families and friends. Many young congregants were drawn to him, dazzled by his stories about working as a personal trainer in Hollywood and the NFL. “We spent the time either hanging out, talking, praying, playing FIFA, or watching [the] news every once in a while,” says Abdelrahim.
Conversations about working out and other small talk eventually dissipated, however, as Monteilh began to talk about violence, including by expressing a warped interpretation of jihad, a term referring to any internal or external struggle facing an individual or community. Younger members of the congregation, like Malik and Abdelrahim, noticed the strange shift but initially gave him the benefit of the doubt. Some thought that Monteilh’s comments were based on misguided ignorance about Islam. Amidst widespread, post-9/11 Islamophobia, it wasn’t hard to believe. But when congregants tried to explain to Monteilh that Islam does not condone violence, he pushed back.
One day, while returning to his car on his way out from a last-minute chiropractor’s appointment, Abdelrahim was met by FBI agents waiting for him in the parking lot. “Obviously, I was a little shocked,” he says. “A lot of questions [were] going through my mind. Number one, how do you know I'm here?” The FBI agents took him to a nearby Starbucks, where they questioned him about his opinions on terrorism. “I really was laughing at the question itself because it's just absurd," says Yasser. At that point, he realized they had been spying on him.
Plaintiff Yasser Abdelrahim.
Wey Wang
Soon it became evident that the convert was not who he said he was, and that he was potentially dangerous. Congregants reported Monteilh to community leaders, the police, and eventually the FBI itself. But they didn’t learn he was an informant until two years later, when he was publicly identified and began to speak openly about the operation.
They learned that between 2006 and 2007, Monteilh had indiscriminately gathered names, phone numbers, and email addresses as he secretly filmed and recorded congregants in their homes, mosques, and businesses. He used hidden cameras and recording devices to spy on community members even when he was not physically present. Monteilh's FBI handlers told him they had a listening device in Fazaga's office, where he had confidential conversations with congregants who sought his guidance in therapy sessions. Monteilh also had an audio recorder hidden in the keychain fob of his car keys, which he would leave behind, seemingly by accident, in the prayer hall. When anybody found the keys, they would bring them to the imam’s office, which served as a lost and found. There, the device could potentially record confidential conversations between the imam and people who sought his guidance.
“I promised my clients confidentiality," says Sheik Fazaga. “I don't say anything without their permission. But to know that the FBI was actually recording these sessions, that is illegal, it is unethical, it is not constitutional, and it puts a lot of people's lives in jeopardy and their well-being and their rights of privacy.”
The FBI had been surveilling Muslims in Southern California, home to one of the largest Muslim populations in the United States, since late 2001. The agency had created a list of names, religious leaders and mosques, and would often send agents to show up unannounced at people’s homes and question them about their religious practice without any discernible relationship to criminal activity.
“FBI agents told [Monteilh] to focus on people who are more devout, like Ali Malik, who was wearing religious clothing, and like Sheik Fazaga because he was a religious leader,” says Ahilan Arulanantham, one of the lead attorneys on the case. “Once we learned that information, we filed a lawsuit challenging the FBI's conduct on constitutional and federal statutory grounds.”
“The FBI was not monitoring individuals. The FBI was monitoring the entire community.”
– Sh. Fazaga
While Monteilh left the Orange County Muslim community after community members took action, his impact was widespread and enduring. Sheik Fazaga had worked for years to foster trust between congregants and the U.S. government in the aftermath of 9/11, even inviting the FBI to speak with members of his mosque in a community town hall. “They looked us all in the eyes and assured us unequivocally that they were not spying on us,” says Fazaga. “We trusted them. But they lied, and our sacred community was shaken to its core.”
Plaintiffs Yasser Abdelrahim, Sh. Yassir Fazaga, and Ali Uddin Malik in front of the Supreme Court on Nov. 8.
Will Martinez
Since 9/11, the government has frequently abused the “state secrets privilege” to escape accountability, including by shutting down lawsuits by survivors of torture, ending litigation of unlawful government surveillance, and covering up misconduct and other abuses in the name of national security.
“The government cannot hide behind state secrets to pretend everything is national security,” says attorney Ahilan Arulanantham. “An independent judge or entity should be able to sort through the evidence and decide whether this constitutes state secrets or not.”
The federal district court accepted the FBI’s state secrets argument and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims that the FBI unlawfully targeted them based on their religion. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals then disagreed and instructed the district court to consider the religious discrimination claims under procedures mandated by Congress in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which specify how courts should handle cases involving surveillance conducted for national security purposes. The FBI appealed the case, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear it. Oral arguments will be held on Nov. 8.
Listen to the full conversation on ACLU's At Liberty podcast, found here.
The plaintiffs are represented by the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, the ACLU of Southern California, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Council for American-Islamic Relations – California (CAIR-CA), and the law firm of Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.