In 2022, three Muslim Americans filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security about intrusive questioning about their religious beliefs and practices. The plaintiffs claim that biases during questioning is illegal. Three Muslim men were questioned with personal and unecesarry questions like “how many times a day do you pray?” and “do you attend a mosque?” The plaintiffs argue that this among many other biases seen during border control and U.S. customs stops demonstrates clear racial and religious bias against Muslims while other people will not even be asked any similar kinds of questions. The plaintiffs claim that they have been targeted multiple times with these types of questions and have been profiled based on their religious beliefs. The plaintiffs main argument is that this religious bias is a clear violation of their first amendment right to exercise free religion. The three Muslim Americans do not see this as an issue with just them, but as a larger issue about these agencies targeting Muslims and people they mistake to be Muslim at ports of entry.
Many groups are in support of this lawsuit. Some of these groups are Americans United, along with Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice, Interfaith Alliance, National Conference of Jewish Women, and Unitarian Universalist Association. All of these groups came together to support this lawsuit and help fund the legal fees. The District Court rejected the claims that the plaintiffs made, but now, as of 2024 the case is filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals.
A Supreme Court Case that could be used as a precedent to this one is Tanzin v. Tanvir. In that case, the plaintiffs sued because they were placed on a no-fly list due to their refusal to inform on their religious communities. The court ruled that authorities violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and therefore declared that this was a violation of the First Amendment. This could be seen as a precedent for Kariye v. Mayorkas due to a federal agency placing a burden on citizens because of their religious beliefs.
The primary constitutional issue at question in this case is: Is the practice of intrusive questioning and targeted questioning placing a burden on citizens’ religious beliefs? I would argue that yes it is. This line of questioning is clearly targeted at Muslims, probably due to the islamophobia problem that government agencies have had ever since 9/11. This is something that I have witnessed first hand as I was traveling with one of my friends. A federal agency should be neutral, and only forcing this line of questioning on certain people because of a preconceived notion that the government agent has, is clearly not neutral. This places a burden on people with certain religious beliefs, which is a direct violation of the First Amendment. I do not see how this would be a slippery slope, but am very open to hearing any arguments. To support the constitution, means to support and respect the rights granted to everyone under it. If a federal agency is failing to do so, how can we trust that our other rights will be protected?
Sources:
https://muslimadvocates.org/court-case/kariye-v-mayorkas/
https://www.aclu.org/cases/kariye-v-mayorkas
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-71_qol1.pdf
9 comments:
This intrusive questioning potentially violates (to me) the First Amendment. Federal agencies should remain neutral, and yet, these Muslim Americans were singled out and questioned about their religious beliefs in a way that wouldn’t happen to others. Inquiring about prayer habits or mosque attendance isn’t just unnecessary - it’s religious profiling.
However, another question to ask would be is this restricting their ability to practice, or is this in anyway establishing a religion - and in some cases, this seems to support both (sort of). Intensive questioning certain religions compared to others seems to support the idea of a "common" or more "normal" religion that is accepted, and this would align with the establishment of a religion.
Similarly, one could argue that the intrusive questioning - while seemingly discriminatory and unfair, might not prevent them from practicing their religion.
Overall, the Tanzin v. Tanvir case shows that federal agencies can violate religious freedom, and this situation seems very similar. Just like the no-fly list unfairly targeted Muslims, these interrogations place an unjust burden on specific religious practices. When people face extra scrutiny due to their faith, it can be argued that this would directly limit their right to freely practice religion.
This isn’t about just three individuals - it reflects a larger, ongoing pattern of discrimination. If we truly protect religious liberty, it must apply equally to all. I believe that federal agencies must be held accountable; if they can violate these rights, what’s stopping them from violating others?
On a constitutional basis, I do not believe this type of intrusive questioning violates the First Amendment because it does not inhibit free exercise nor does it establish a religion. In Tanzin v. Tanvir, the plaintiff's ability to freely exercise their religion was clearly violated because they were punished for their unwillingness to admit to practicing their religion. This is not a neutral policy and the government should not force anyone to admit to a particular religion. However, I see no punishment for inaction in 2022 case, unless I am missing information. Simply asking a question about religion without requiring an answer is constitutional in my opinion because there is no coercion factor, nor burden and therefore remains neutral. If the government wanted to take a voluntary poll to find differences in economic equality between certain religious groups, they would have to ask about one's religious identity. Would this be a violation of the First Amendment? I don't think so. That being said, if the plaintiffs feel they are being treated differently based on their perceived race at airports, this could violate discrimination laws. Like I said, it doesn't inhibit their ability to practice religion freely, but the government has no right to ask only a particular nationality or skin color a question about their religion. If one race and not all are being asked this question, this is discrimination.
I do not believe that the intrusive questioning the three Muslims faced violates the First Amendment. Yes, it is discriminatory and is projected islamaphobia, but that is potentially a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VIII, not the First Amendment. Everyone in the United States is owed a fair line of questioning, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security did not do this by clearly asking questions targeted at Muslims. However, I do not see evidence that this questioning inhibited the free exercise of religion for these Muslim individuals or established a religion. I would need more knowledge of the context of this questioning and the results after to conclude that it the potentially did violate the First Amendment.
In my opinion, this case does not violate the First Amendment rights outlined in the United States Constitution. While I acknowledge that the invasive nature of this line of questioning raises serious moral concerns and highlights underlying issues of Islamophobia, I firmly believe that it does not succeed in establishing a state religion nor does it impede individuals from freely practicing their faith. Therefore, from a constitutional standpoint, I do not consider this situation an infringement on religious freedoms or a constitutional issue related to religion itself. Instead, it reflects societal attitudes and biases that require further examination.
The use of language and not really any action may not seem discriminatory at face value in this instance, but is a violation of the privacy involved in religious decisions. And the fact that these questions are typically designed to target, identify, or make note of a specific religious group negates any semblance of national security. It is not treating every religion the same since those who are not Muslim are not going to face the same questions or treatment, which impacts the neutrality of government actions and policies.
I do not believe that the intrusive questioning of these three individuals violated the First Amendment. These questions are clearly intended for national security purposes, and their administration is justified by the need for security. Though these questions may seem targeted or racially motivated, they do not involve an infringement in speech or religious freedom, and just as any police officer is legally allowed to ask questions, so too should federal agents.
I agree with Fehr. I think, at least at face value, this case does not necessarily violate the First Amendment. With that being said, as Fehr mentions, there are potential valid violations of other Amendments and laws put in place to avoid discrimination like the three Muslims in this case endured. I think that the discrimination experienced by minority religions, like Islam, is a serious issue and one that should be acknowledged. I guess I am not sure exactly where I stand on this case, but I do not think, at least with the information provided, that this case necessarily violates the First Amendment based on their free exercise of religion not being directly violated.
The First Amendment protects our right as United States citizens to exercise our religion, have free speech, free press, and prevents the government from establishing any religion. While I think there is clear and present racial discrimination happening at the expense of this intrusive questioning I do not feel that the three individuals First Amendment rights were violated. The federal agents do not have compelling state interest in asking questions about ones personal prayer or attendance to a mosque, which may aid in showing that other amendment rights are being violated like equal protection. Still the individuals are not being prohibited to exercise in any way and the government is not establishing any religion by simply asking these questions.
I do not believe that this violates the first amendment as questioning people about their background is not a matter of religion but a matter of national security to keep our country safe. These agents could ask the same questions to different people and not solely Muslims. While religious freedom is crucial, this matter of national security should be balanced with it, and I ultimately believe it does not violate the establishment clause.
Post a Comment