Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Religion & Law Blogs -> Religion Clause

Religion & Law

: Religion Clause

Religious Discrimination Challenges To Placement On No-Fly List Dismissed

By Howard M. Friedman

In Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland Security, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64619 (ND CA, July 27, 2009), Rahinah Ibrahim, a Muslim woman who is a citizen of Malaysia and was a graduate student at Stanford University in 2005, challenged the placement of her name on the Transportation Safety Administration's no-fly list and her treatment at the San Francisco airport. This decision involves Ibrahim's amended complaint after a decision on various issues in the case by the 9th Circuit. Ibrahim claimed that placing her name on the no-fly list violated her right to freely exercise her religion, her right to freely associate with other Muslims and Malaysians, her right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and her rights to equal protection and procedural due process. The court, however, held that since Ibrahim had now returned to Malaysia, she cannot maintain her action for future relief because the Constitution does not apply extraterritorially to protect non-resident aliens outside the country.

As to Ibrahim's claim for damages on the basis of her past treatment at the San Francisco airport, under the Supreme Court's recent decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal her allegations were not strong enough to create a plausible case of religious and national origin discrimination. This claim was dismissed with leave to amend after discovery in other aspects of her case. Her claim that her hijab was temporarily removed by a police officer searching her was not sufficient to state a claim for violation of religious expression. Ibrahim was permitted to proceed against airport, police and city officials on claims of false imprisonment and interference with civil rights, and against all defendants on Fourth Amendment and emotional distress claims.

Full post as published by Religion Clause on August 02, 2009 (boomark / email).