A lawsuit targeting the New York Police Department’s surveillance of Muslims can move forward, paving the way for a trial on the constitutionality of spying on New Jersey mosques, schools and businesses, including ones in Paterson and North Bergen.
Advertisement
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals said the NYPD could not target a group exclusively on the basis of their religion or ethnic background. However, the ruling was compared to a discredited 1944 Supreme Court case, which upheld the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. We are left to wonder why we can not see with foresight what we see so clearly with hindsight-that “loyalty is a matter of the heart and mind[,] not race, creed, or color”.
Both of those disputes have been settled, according to court filings.
A spokesman for New York City’s Law Department said it was reviewing the decision and declined to comment further.
Despite the disbanding of the police unit, Muslim Advocates legal director Glenn Katon said he remained wary because the city has not given assurances that the underlying practices have stopped.
In a related lawsuit in Brooklyn, the city has reached a tentative settlement with a group of Muslims, but the parties have asked the court to postpone approval until next month while they iron out final details.
Linda Sarsour, Executive Director of the Arab American Association of New York, lauded today’s verdict, saying “The courts could not deny that in fact there is reason to believe that the NYPD engages in unwarranted surveillance of Muslims based on their faith alone…We haven’t won yet, but this is a step in the right direction” Sarsour also said the NYPD program had generated widespread fear and paranoia. “Stigmatizing a group based on its religion is contrary to our values”.
In one story, published in February 2012, the Associated Press reported that the New York Police Department sent plainclothes officers to Newark businesses owned or frequented by Muslim people, took photographs of 16 mosques and mapped them.
During this time, U.S. District Judge William Martini said the surveillance program was “anti-terrorism” not “anti-Muslim”. If you would like to discuss another topic, look for a relevant article.
The information gathered by the undercover unit appears to have ranged from innocuous to mundane.
The NYPD has insisted that its program, which was shut down a year ago, was merely meant to stay on guard for possible terror threats.
The New Jersey Muslims “have plausibly alleged that the City engaged in intentional discrimination”, Ambro wrote in overturning the ruling, creating “a presumption of unconstitutionality that remains the City’s obligation to rebut…”
“Our nation’s history teaches the uncomfortable lesson that those not on discrimination’s receiving end can all too easily gloss over the “badge of inferiority” inflicted by unequal treatment”, Circuit Judge Ambro wrote. That argument also was quickly dismissed by Ambro.
In short, it argues, “What you don’t know can’t hurt you”. Shoot the messenger, ‘ ” his opinion read.
Advertisement
The decision by the court in Philadelphia reversed a lower court’s decision to throw out the case. And he said the plaintiffs couldn’t simply infer the intent of the program was discriminatory.
