Ahmad Chebli is a Lebanese man from Michigan, father of two children, and has spent his career both as a business owner and an engineer. In 2018, Ahmad was approached by a few FBI agents, and questioned about his political beliefs, religious beliefs, what associations he was a part of, and what he did in Lebanon as a student before he moved back to his home country, the United States. The FBI agents accused Ahmad of being part of a terrorist organization, to which Ahmad immediately denied. The FBI told Ahmad that he needed to work for them due to his suspected terrorist affiliations, and if he did not agree to become an informant then he and his family would be closely monitored and investigated by the government. Ahmad refused to work for them, so as a result he was placed on the No Fly List in December 2018. Because Ahmad has been unable to fly, he cannot travel to see friends, for work, nor can he perform the Hajj pilgrimage: a religious obligation for people of Muslim faith. Ahmad has tried to fight against the FBI and remove himself from the No Fly List, but they have refused to respond or provide any evidence as to why he was even placed on there in the first place.
In April 2021, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of Ahmad because they believed the government had wrongly placed him on the No Fly List. The lawsuit was filed in the federal district court in Washington D.C., as the ACLU stated that this was a violation of many of Ahmad's rights. The ACLU believes that the fact that the FBI took action and placed Ahmad on the No Fly List after he refused to comply with their demands is a violation of his First Amendment rights and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act "RFRA." Ahmad holds sincere Muslim beliefs that he must perform the Hajj, thus the FBI is placing a severe burden on his religious exercise by putting his name on the No Fly List. The ACLU also states that this is a violation of the RFRA, as the FBI cannot place this burden on Ahmad unless they can prove this is the "least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest."
For many years, the United States government has been placing citizens on the No Fly List that are stigmatized as terrorism suspects. The government gives little reasoning for doing so, and these lists are disproportionately filled with Muslims and those of Arab, Middle Eastern, or South Asian dissent. Recently, the government has been pressuring Muslims more often to become informants for them but a recent Supreme Court ruling may be putting a stop to this. Similar to this case, in Tanzin v. Tanvir, three Muslim men filed a lawsuit under the RFRA after the government placed them on the No Fly List when they refused to become FBI informants. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the Muslim men and agreed that listing them on the No Fly List burdened their free exercise of religion in violation of the RFRA.
Due to the ruling the Supreme Court made in Tanzin v. Tanvir, I believe the district court should side in favor of Chebli and the ACLU in this case. The exact same scenario happened in Tanzin v. Tanvir as it did in Chebli v. Kable, as in both cases Muslim men were not only put on the No Fly List for refusing to become FBI informants, but they were not given reason as to why they were put on the list. I believe it is a violation of these Muslim men's First Amendment rights in both cases to punish them for their protected-speech. Ahmad chose not to become an informant because he was neither a terrorist nor did he want to turn against his Muslim community. His refusal to be an informant and follow his ethical beliefs should not be punished because is protected under his First Amendment rights. It it also unconstitutional under the RFRA for the FBI to place Ahmad on the No Fly List because it imposes a substantial burden on the right to practice his religious exercise. Ahmad must complete the Hajj pilgrimage overseas, and he is unable to do this due to his name being on the list. I believe that under the RFRA, the government has no compelling interest to burden Ahmad in this way because they have shown no proof that he is a suspected terrorist or that he poses a threat to the nation's security.
A counter argument one might make to my opinion is that the government has a compelling interest in putting citizens on the No Fly List because the safety of the United States outweighs the religious freedom of a citizen. I do understand that if the FBI had top secret information regarding a citizen in a terrorist organization then they might not be able to directly share that information, but because the FBI has given 0 reason to Ahmad as to why he is on the No Fly List, I do not think one can apply that logic here.
The ruling in this case is important not only to strengthen the ruling previously made in Tanzin v. Tanvir but it is also important to minority religions. The purpose of the First Amendment is to help protect minorities, and the district court must do so in this case. If Muslim Americans are being targeted and mistreated by the FBI, it is the job of the First Amendment as well as the RFRA to protect their rights. Not only do I believe there could be some unfair religious profiling going on in this case, but also the fact that Ahmad's religious practices are being burdened by the FBI is a clear violation of the First Amendment. The FBI has not shown enough compelling interest in this case to prevent Ahmad from completing the Hajj pilgrimage.
8 comments:
I agree with the decision of the author and I find the actions of the FBI in this case to be egregiously unconstitutional. It appears that the sole reason for Ahmad being placed on the no-fly list is because of discrimination and the retaliation of FBI agents who were upset he did not want to work for them. Ahmad clearly has a demonstrated and significant religious belief and being that his placement upon the no-fly list is uncalled for, the government is clearly burdening his free exercise with no reasonable cause. The correct course of action in my opinion would be to only place people on the no-fly list when there is a clear governmental interest in doing so and remove Ahmad from it as he does not present a risk.
I completely agree with the analysis of Amanda in this case. While the national security of our country would definitely be considered a compelling enough reason to override the protections afforded to citizens by the First Amendment, I do not believe Chebli to be a threat to national security and, therefore, there is not compelling state interest. In many other cases we have analyzed this semester, there has been a common issue of lack of justification or reasoning behind compelling state interests or exploration of less restrictive means. This was of importance in Goldman v. Weinberger, in which the dissent argued that there wasn't sufficient reasoning as to why wearing a yarmulke would be harmful to the unity of the airforce and why this compelling interest of unity could not be achieved through less restrictive means. It is also at play here - the state does not provide sufficient evidence as to why this man would be a threat to the country.
I agree as well, specifically with what Sofia says in the comments, that if national security was shown to be at stake here, that would be a compelling state interest; however, in this case, it appears their decision was without true purpose. Also, they should be required to provide a reasonable explanation for their decision, which it sounds like Chebli did not get. This case to me seems more about religious discrimination - until the author mentioned the full extent, for instance that he can not participate in the Hajj pilgrimage, which is a religious obligation for him (and thus, goes into Free Exercise).
I side with the author's argument and believe that there is no argument on behalf of the FBI. The FBI does not provide an explicit reason to their actions which makes me believe that the basis for this is religious discrimination. This feels like a situation where an individual is guilty until proven innocent until innocent until proven guilty. Truly, I believe that the decision made by the FBI is rooted in religious discrimination. In essence, this situation is racial profiling
I agree with the author and believe that the FBI's actions are not justifiable. It does not seem that the FBI provided any evidence of their suspicions and placed him on the no fly list for no clear reason. I think that this does appear to be a case of religious discrimination and the FBI should not be allowed to profile people and violate their freedoms.
I agree with the points made by my classmates and the author in that the FBI's actions is not justifiable, unethical, unconstitutional, and discriminatory. I understand the counterpoint that the author highlighted in their post and do think that the government does have the compelling interest to place individuals onto the No Fly List in order to ensure some level of national security; however, to that point I do not think that Chebli deserves to be on that list based upon the evidence that we have in this case. Someone should not be placed upon the No Fly List and essential labeled as a terrorist simply because of their ethnicity and religious affliction - that is simply a gross misconduct of justice. As for Chebli's religious practices being substantially burdened I think it is quite obvious that Chebli's has not been able to practice his religion in the same manner as he was able to before being unjustly placed upon the No Fly List.
Post a Comment