SHARIAsource

Plaintiff Kareem Hassan Milhouse, an inmate at the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania (“USP-Lewisburg”), filed aBivens-styled complaint against several Federal Bureau of Prisons and USP-Lewisburg officials. The Plaintiff asserted that he had been denied access to the courts on three occasions and denied the practice of his religious requirements in violations of his right to free exercise, on the bases that: (1) there was no Islamic chaplain for Muslim inmates nor services for Special Management Unit inmates to attend services physically, nor were services provided through the radio as were other institutional programs, and (2) there was no Islamic celebration after the Ramadan fast, nor special meal of the types given for holidays of other faiths, and no Muslim chaplain with whom to discuss articles of faith. [He believed both of these types of services to be requirements stipulated by Islamic ritual law.] The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment. The District Court granted the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Court found that the alleged conduct did not fall within the scope of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), which applies to free exercise of religion claims under the First Amendment raised by prisoners, because the Plaintiff did not establish that a “substantial burden” had been placed on his ability to exercise his religion. The Court further determined that the Plaintiff had alternative means of worship available to him and that the Defendants’ conduct of providing the meal to non-Muslim inmates did not inhibit or curtail his ability to express adherence to his Islamic faith and beliefs. Because the Plaintiff failed to meet the substantial burden test with respect to both of these freedom of religion claims, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.

Plaintiff Jesse Copeland, an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, brought suit after he refused to leave a Muslim religious meeting after prison officials ordered the meeting’s conclusion and was disciplined for causing a disturbance and placed on disciplinary restrictions, including a six-month ban on attending other religious meetings. The Plaintiff filed a complaint in the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, challenging the ban and other prison policies impacting Muslim inmates. The District Court dismissed the complaint and granted summary judgment for the Respondents, prison officials at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The Fifth Circuit determined that there was no First Amendment free exercise violation under § 1983 nor a  violation of the Plaintiff’s rights under RLUIPA based on the Plaintiff’s six-month ban from attending religious meetings due to procedural bars to the Plaintiff’s recovery, including sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and mootness.

Plaintiff Charles Glenn, an inmate at the New Hampshire Department of Corrections (DOC) filed suit against the Respondents, various DOC prison officials, for alleged violations of his rights to free exercise [of his ability to exercise Islamic ritual law] under the First Amendment and RLUIPA. Specifically, the Plaintiff – a practicing Muslim – argued that there had been no Friday prayer (jumuʿa) services at the New Hampshire State Prison for the past three years and that he had no access to an Imam (a Muslim prayer leader), a Qur’an, or other Islamic literature, which placed constraints on his ability to practice Islam [specifically, it's ritual law aspects]. In conducting a Preliminary Review, the Court applied the four-part test for examining the constitutionality of a regulation that restricts an inmate’s First Amendment free exercise of religion found in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-90 (1987). The Court assessed the four Turner factors -- (1) whether there is a valid, rational connection between the regulation and the legitimate government interest put forward to justify it; (2) whether alternative means to exercise the right exist; (3) what impact accommodating the right will have on prison resources; and (4) whether there was an absence of alternatives to the prison regulation. The Court found that the prison’s policy of denying Friday Prayer (jumuʿa) services, which are a central and essential element of religious practice, impinged on the Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to exercise his religion.

Plaintiff Jack Robinson, a formerly incarcerated inmate at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn (“MDC”), brought an action against Respondent, Officer Jimminez, a correctional officer at MDC, for allegedly depriving the Plaintiff of his right to religious worship under the First Amendment. The Plaintiff claimed that, although he reserved the prison’s religious room for Friday prayer (jumuʿa) services, the Respondent allowed Jewish prisoners to also use the room. The Respondent argued that the Plaintiff’s religious service was “stopped due to a scheduling conflict with another group of inmates who had also reserved the religious room for the same time as plaintiff.” The Respondent moved for summary judgment, and the district court judge referred the Respondent’s motion to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation. The magistrate judge determined that the Respondent’s decision to stop one religious service was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests because the action was undertaken to maintain order and prevent an altercation between Muslim and Jewish prisoners, and therefore recommended that the Respondent’s motion for summary judgment be granted.

Plaintiff Derrick Lafurr Brown, a Muslim inmate confined in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, filed a suit against the Respondents, who were various prison officials at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, for interrupting the Islamic services [Friday services specified in Islamic ritual law] out of an alleged general bias against Islam. The magistrate judge determined that the prison officials were acting in response to the Plaintiff’s repeated disobedience, and that their measure of standing in the doorway to block entry to the services was related to a legitimate penological interest and therefore did not interfere with the inmate's free exercise of religion. The magistrate judge recommended that the plaintiff's civil rights claims be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff Tariq A. Vaughn, Sr., an inmate at the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics alleging that he told prison officials that he did not want to be housed with a Muslim inmate, and after he was placed in a cell with a Muslim inmate, that the Muslim inmate stabbed him in the head and back. The magistrate judge recommended that the Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint be dismissed with prejudice because it was frivolous, and alternatively for failing to state a claim for which relief can be granted. [There seemed to be no stated religious or Islamic law basis for the claim.]

Plaintiff Leila Diab, an observant Muslim teacher who was hired to teach social studies and English as a second language, filed a suit against the Respondents, the Chicago Board of Education and John F. Kennedy High School Principal George Szkapiak, alleging that the Respondents discriminated and retaliated against her, and further subjected her to a hostile work environment, on the basis of her Islamic faith. The Plaintiff alleged that she was forced to resign from her teaching position following anti-Islamic comments made by the principal and various teachers at the Kennedy high school. The Plaintiff further claimed that she received a hate mail note (which read: “Israel is doing OK) and that her Qur'an was desecrated on school property [in violation of norms taken to be governed by Islamic ritual law, of treating the Qur'an with respect]. In response, the Respondents filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the complaint. The District Court determined that in order to prevail on her discrimination claims, the Plaintiff had to show that the Respondents subjected her to an adverse employment action, such as: "(1) termination or reduction in compensation, fringe benefits, or other financial terms of employment; (2) transfers or changes in job duties that cause an employee's skills to atrophy and reduce future career prospects; and (3) unbearable changes in job conditions, such as a hostile work environment or conditions amounting to constructive discharge." Barton v. Zimmer, Inc., 662 F.3d 448, 2011 WL 4921603, at *4 (7th Cir. 2011). The Court granted the Respondent’s motion as to the Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims, finding that it could not conclude that a reasonable jury would find the note, taken together with the Qur'an incident nine months later, to create a hostile work environment. While the Court acknowledge that the incidents may have proved upsetting to her, it observed that the two incidents were not repeated and did not involve any physical contact or verbal abuse.

Plaintiff John Knapp, a state prisoner and observant Muslim [following the general requirements of Islamic ritual law], filed suit against the Respondents, prison officials in their individual and official capacities, for an alleged violation of his rights under RLUIPA on the claim that the prison facility lacked weekly Friday prayer (jumuʿa) services. The prison employed a volunteer policy, which allowed Muslims in the prison community to volunteer to lead the Friday prayer service in order to enable group worship. But because there were no volunteers or future prospect of volunteers, the Friday prayer service was not conducted. The magistrate judge determined that the volunteer policy challenged by the Plaintiff could violate the prisoner’s rights under RLUIPA if such a policy was not the least restrictive means by which the government could achieve a compelling state interest, and that the Plaintiff’s allegations sufficed to assert a claim. The magistrate judge therefore recommended that the Plaintiff’s claim under RLUIPA be allowed to proceed.

A Uzbek alien named Yusopov, who had previously been labeled a danger to the security of the nation by the Board of Immigration Appeals, petitioned the court for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The plaintiff argued that he would likely be tortured if returned to his home country of Uzbekistan on religious and political grounds, because he was a practicing Muslim. The Court granted asylum, concluding that the government had not presented evidence to prove that the petitioner posed a national security risk. NB: The Convention Against Torture provisions on withholding removal are codified into U.S. Law at 8 C.F.R. §1206.16 (c). Further obligations noted by the Court are described in the INA at 8 U.S.C. §1231(b)(3)(A), which “prohibits removal of an individual unlawfully in this country if the Attorney General believes that the individual's life or freedom would be threatened in the country of removal on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”

The plaintiffs were survivors, family members, and representatives of the estates of the American victims of the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. The plaintiffs sued Iran, utilizing an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) that allows the prosecution of foreign states that sponsor terrorism for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful death. The plaintiffs pointed to the financial ties between Hezbollah (who allegedly orchestrated the attack) and Iran when arguing that Iran should be held liable. Iran did not file an answer to this claim. The court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding $1 billion in punitive damages.

The plaintiff , an American citizen whose wife was killed in a suicide bombing in Israel, sued Iran under the state-sponsored terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) (allowing suit against sovereign states that financially sponsor terrorism), for intentional infliction of emotional distress and economic loss due to wrongful death of his wife in a suicide bomber’s attack in Israel. The plaintiff argued that Iran and its Ministry of Information and Security should be held financially liable, as there were financial ties between the group that claimed responsibility for the attack, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Iran. Iran failed to make an appearance or file an answer. The Court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, awarding him $10,380,568 for emotional and economic loss.

Additional commentary. The FSIA, 28 U.S.C.A. §1605(a) is the terrorism exception to FSIA and what plaintiffs depend on to get jurisdiction over Iran. §1605(a)(1) stays that “A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case not otherwise covered by this chapter in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of material support or resources for such an act if such act or provision of material support or resources is engaged in by an official, employee, or agent of such foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her office, employment, or agency.” While there is no direct connection to Islamic law, there is a dispute that centers around whether Iran -- an Islamic constitutional state -- sponsors military operations conceived of as jihad under the guise of Islamic law.

Plaintiffs, a group of individuals harmed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, brought tort claims for damages incurred during that attack against thirty-two distinct defendants. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the charges against seven of the thirty-two defendants, including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a Saudi government charity, and several Saudi princes, concluding that none of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) exceptions (which would allow suit to proceed against sovereigns or diplomats) were applicable in those cases. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision and further dismissed the case against a Saudi banker for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The defendant, an American Muslim man accused of attending a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, appealed a conviction for making false declarations to a grand jury, obstructing justice, and for making false material statements to the FBI. Specifically, the defendant was convicted for traveling to Pakistan in 1999 and attending a “jihadist training camp” in Afghanistan. While attending these camps were not a crime in 1999, the defendant subsequently lied about his travels and experiences. He argued that his conviction should be overturned because the lower court admitted irrelevant and unduly prejudicial evidence, and misapplied the sentencing guidelines for terrorism-related convictions. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, concluding that neither the admitted evidence nor the application for the terrorism sentencing guidelines was inappropriate. While the case did not relate to Islamic law directly, the rules governing jihad, and petitioners' views of them, are often based on false definitions of Islamic law.

The plaintiff sued his former attorneys for malpractice, on the basis that they did not seek punitive damages in the plaintiff’s successful claim against Iran for being held hostage in Beirut in 1983. The plaintiff argued that by failing to name the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security as a defendant in that case, his attorneys prevented him from collecting substantial punitive damages under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. He also alleged that the attorneys charged him an excessive contingency fee. The Court dismissed the first claim, as the ability to collect punitive damages at the time was limited by President Clinton’s executive waiver of the punitive damages provision. The Court further ordered the parties to settlement discussions regarding the excessive fee complaint. The plaintiff later appealed this decision, but the case was ultimately dismissed.

Family members of an American citizen killed in a suicide bombing attack in Israel sued Iran and its Ministry of Intelligence and Security for her wrongful death, alleging that Iran financially supported Hamas, which took responsibility for the bombing at the time of the attack. Iran did not file an answer to the charges. Invoking the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act exception for state-sponsored terrorism (allowing sovereign states that financially sponsor terrorism to be sued), the Court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, awarding $9,879,023 to the victim’s husband for both economic and emotional loss of his wife. The Court awarded an additional $5,000,000 to each of the victim’s parents for emotional loss.

The sister of an American serviceman killed during the 1983 bombing in Beirut, allegedly by Hezbollah, sued Iran and its Ministry of Intelligence and Security, seeking compensatory damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages following her brother’s wrongful death. Invoking the state-sponsored terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (allowing sovereign states that financially sponsor terrorism to be sued), she alleged that Iran should be liable for providing financial support to Hezbollah. Iran did not file an answer to the charge. The Court entered judgment in the plaintiff’s favor, granting $2,500,000 in compensatory damages, while noting that punitive damages were not allowed against a foreign state.

The estate and family members of an American serviceman killed during the 1983 bombing in Beirut, allegedly by Hezbollah, brought suit against Iran and its Ministry of Intelligence and Security for his wrongful death. Invoking the state-sponsored terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (a law that allows foreign nations to be immune from lawsuits from American citizens in most cases), they alleged that Iran should be held liable for providing financial support to Hezbollah. Iran did not file an answer to the charge. The Court entered judgment in favor of the family, granting compensatory damages in the amount of $13,241,486 to the serviceman’s widow, parents, and children.

The widow of an American serviceman killed during the 1983 bombing in Beirut, allegedly by Hezbollah, brought suit against Iran and its Ministry of Intelligence and Security for compensatory damages for wrongful death, solatium (referring to “the mental anguish, bereavement, and grief that those with a close relationship to the decedent experience as a result of the decedent’s death”), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and punitive damages. She sued under the state-sponsored terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (allowing sovereign states that financially sponsor terrorism to be sued), alleging that Iran provided financial support to Hezbollah. Iran did not file an answer to the charge. The Court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, awarding her $18,297,000 in compensatory damages for economic and emotional loss. The Court noted, however, that it could not award punitive damages against a foreign state.

The survivor and the family of two men who were kidnapped and held for three weeks by the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) sued the PKK under the Antiterrorism Act of 1991, as well as Syria, its Ministry of Defense, and several high-ranking Syrian officials under the state-sponsored terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) (which allows individuals to sue nations that sponsor terrorism). Syria moved to have the case dismissed, citing a lack of jurisdiction, insufficient process, and failure to make a claim. The Court allowed the plaintiffs an opportunity to address the points brought up by the defendants in an amended complaint, denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. The defendant’s subsequent motion to dismiss was denied. In July 2009, a status report was filed by the defendant, and the case was still open as of August 2011.

The plaintiff, Wafaa Elwakil, brought this action against her former employer, Target Media Partners, claiming a violation of her rights pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The plaintiff claimed that the company subjected her to discriminatory treatment because of her race, religion, and ethnicity; created a hostile work environment; and unlawfully retaliated against her for filing a complaint with the Kenner Police Department. The company filed a motion to dismiss. The District Court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for Title VII discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation because the court found that the evidence indicated that the plaintiff did not engage in a "protected activity" for the purposes of her Title VII claim.