Revised Settlement Enhances Protections From Discriminatory NYPD Surveillance of American Muslims
NEW YORK — In a revised settlement announced today, the New York City Police Department has agreed to strengthen reforms in a landmark settlement agreement that will protect New York Muslims and others from discriminatory and unjustified surveillance.
The revised agreement expands the independence, authority, and responsibilities of a civilian representative who will act as a check against surveillance abuses by the NYPD. The settlement was reached in two federal lawsuits, Raza v. City of New York and Handschu v. Special Services Division.
The agreement comes after an October from the judge in the Handschu case that recommended enhancements to the previous settlement in January 2016.
The new agreement requires the mayor to obtain federal court approval before abolishing the position of civilian representative, expands the scope of the representative’s authority to ensure the NYPD’s compliance with the “Handschu Guidelines” on surveillance of political and religious activity, and empowers the representative to report to the court at any time concerning violations of the guidelines.
In the October ruling, Judge Charles S. Haight Jr. had found that the “other provisions in the proposed settlement are salutary” and “would strongly militate in favor of approval.”
Raza was in June 2013 by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility (CLEAR) project of Main Street Legal Services at CUNY School of Law, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and the law firm Morrison & Foerster LLP. The case was filed on behalf of religious and community leaders, mosques, and a charitable organization alleging they were swept up in the NYPD’s dragnet surveillance of Muslims. The suit charged that the NYPD violated the U.S. and New York State Constitutions by singling out and stigmatizing entire communities of New Yorkers based on their religion. The case sought systemic reforms to prevent law enforcement abuses.
Separately in 2013, lawyers in the Handschu case, including the NYCLU, arguing that the NYPD’s investigations of Muslims violated a long-standing consent decree in that case, which was a class action to protect New Yorkers’ lawful political and religious activities from unwarranted NYPD surveillance.
The settlement must be approved by the judges in both cases.
Below are comments on the agreement:
Hina Shamsi, ACLU National Security Project director:
“As religious bigotry rises to a fever pitch nationwide, this settlement sends the message that Muslims and all New Yorkers will have even stronger protections from unconstitutional religious profiling and surveillance. Federal officials and local police elsewhere should take heed that courageous people like our clients and their supporters will always stand up for constitutional rights and freedoms.”
Imam Hamid Hassan Raza, lead plaintiff in the Raza suit:
“This settlement represents important progress, not only for Muslim New Yorkers but for other minorities in New York and beyond. The new additions to the agreement cement the gains that we achieved before, securing our freedom to practice our religion without being afraid of who’s watching.”
Ramzi Kassem, CLEAR founding director and CUNY professor of law:
“For far too long, Muslims in New York City have borne the harms of their own police department’s surveillance apparatus. They pushed back courageously and these new safeguards are among their hard-fought gains. Contrary to what some have said, the NYPD’s unfettered Muslim surveillance program is no model for others to follow —it has been discredited.”
Arthur Eisenberg, NYCLU legal director:
“We appreciate Judge Haight’s suggestions for enhancing the settlement. We believe the terms we have now arrived at make it even more protective of religious and political freedoms.”
The previous settlement included the following changes:
- Prohibiting investigations in which race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin is a substantial or motivating factor.
- Requiring articulable and factual information regarding possible unlawful activity before the NYPD can launch a preliminary investigation into political or religious activity.
- Requiring the NYPD to account for the potential effect of investigative techniques on constitutionally-protected activities such as religious worship and political meetings.
- Limiting the NYPD’s use of undercovers and confidential informants to situations in which the information sought cannot reasonably be obtained in a timely and effective way by less intrusive means.
- Putting an end to open-ended investigations by imposing presumptive time limits and requiring reviews of ongoing investigations every six months.
- Installing a civilian representative within the NYPD with the power and obligation to ensure all safeguards are followed and to serve as a check on investigations directed at political and religious activities. The civilian representative must record and report any violations to the police commissioner, who must investigate violations and report back to the civilian representative. If violations are systematic, the civilian representative must report them directly to the judge in the Handschu case.
- Removing from the NYPD website the Radicalization in the West report, which justified discriminatory surveillance, and affirming that the report is not and will not be relied upon to open or prolong NYPD investigations.
Under the new changes:
- The civilian representative is empowered to report to the court at any time if there are violations of the Handschu Guidelines, is required to report to the court if there are systematic violations, and is required to report to the court on an annual basis.
- The mayor is prohibited from abolishing the civilian representative position without judicial approval, and abolition by order of the court is only permitted if there have not been systemic violations for a period of three years.
- The civilian representative is specifically authorized to review not just the opening or extension of investigations, but also how they are conducted. In addition, the civilian representative is specifically authorized to review the propriety of the use or extension of use of undercover officers or confidential informants.
The plaintiffs in the Raza case in addition to Imam Raza are Asad Dandia, Masjid Al-Ansar mosque, the charity Muslims Giving Back, Masjid At-Taqwa mosque, and Mohammad Elshinawy.
In addition to Shamsi, Kassem, and Eisenberg, lawyers on the Raza case include Ashley Gorski and Patrick Toomey of the ACLU, Naz Ahmad and Tarek Z. Ismail of CLEAR, Beth Haroules of the NYCLU, and Hector Gallegos, Kyle Mooney, and Adam Hunt of Morrison & Foerster LLP.
Lawyers on the Handschu case are Eisenberg, Jethro M. Eisenstein, Martin R. Stolar, Paul G. Chevigny, and Franklin Siegel.
Today’s settlement letter to the judge in the Raza case is here:
/nypd-settlement-letter
A comparison document filed in the Raza case today showing changes to the 2003 Handschu Guidelines based on today’s agreement is here:
/NYPD-revised-agreement-2003-2017
A comparison document filed in the Raza case today showing the most recent changes is here:
/NYPD-revised-agreement-2016-2017
A document filed today in the Handschu case explaining the changes to the guidelines is here:
|/NYPD-Handschu-declaration
More information on the case and plaintiffs is here:
/cases/raza-v-city-new-york-legal-challenge-nypd-muslim-surveillance-program
National Security
Raza v. City of New York - Legal Challenge to NYPD Muslim Surveillance Program
National Security
Raza v. City of New York - Legal Challenge to NYPD Muslim Surveillance Program
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
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.