Tanvir v. Tanzin: The Federal No Fly List

Muhammad Tanvir

Muhammad Tanvir

CLEAR frequently represents individuals approached by law enforcement for questioning. Often, law enforcement is fishing for information on vulnerable communities, sometimes even asking Muslim New Yorkers to spy on their own communities.

Students and attorneys at CLEAR noted a pattern among at least four Muslim clients who refused to become FBI informants. Shortly after declining to spy, each of these men found themselves on the federal No Fly List. Federal agents placed or kept them on the list to coerce the men into spying on their communities.

CLEAR brought suit in federal court to challenge the FBI’s abuse of the No Fly List, partnering with the Center for Constitutional Rights and the law firm of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP. Our clients asked for removal from the No Fly List and for monetary damages from the agents who placed them on the list.

Days before the first major court appearance in the case, the government informed all four plaintiffs that they had been removed from the No-Fly List. The district court later granted the government’s motion to dismiss the remaining claims. 

Our clients appealed the district court’s decision, insisting on redress for the harm they suffered by placement on the No Fly List. For years, the men were unable to see spouses, children, sick parents, and elderly grandparents who are overseas. They lost jobs, were stigmatized within their communities, and suffered severe financial and emotional distress. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the district court’s opinion, reinstating our clients’ claims. The appeals court held that the men could seek money damages against individual FBI agents for violating their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). 

This ruling brought the plaintiffs one step closer to redress for the harms they suffered as a result of their placement on the No Fly List.  It also marked the first time that the Second Circuit held that individuals who suffered religious discrimination at the hands of federal agents could seek money damages under RFRA, establishing an important accountability mechanism across affected communities and beyond.

In 2019, the U.S. government sought appeal of the Second Circuit’s ruling. CLEAR’s director, Ramzi Kassem, argued the case before the Supreme Court in October 2020. In December 2020, the Supreme Court unanimously (8-0) held in favor of our clients, allowing them to proceed with their efforts to seek money damages against individual federal agents.

The plaintiffs pressed forward in pursuing their claims. In February 2023, the district court dismissed the claims under the doctrine of qualified immunity. In October 2024, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal, but clarified that going forward, agents are on notice that coercing someone to serve as an informant in their religious community by placing them on the No Fly List if they refuse, would violate RFRA.

PRESS:

“Justices Rule for Muslim Men Who Sued FBI Agents After Being Placed on No-Fly List”, Wall Street Journal, 12/10/2020 VIEW

“Federal Agents Who Violate Individual Rights Can Be Sued For Damages, Supreme Court Rules”, Forbes, 01/22/2021 VIEW

“Supreme Court Backs Muslim Men in Case on No-Fly List”, New York Times, 12/10/2020 VIEW

“Argument Analysis: Justices Divided on Money Damages for Religious Freedom Lawsuits”, SCOTUS Blog, 10/06/2020 VIEW

“Supreme Court Hears Case of Muslims Who Say They Were Targeted for Not Becoming Informants”, Washington Post, 10/06/2020, VIEW

“Supreme Court Hears Case of Muslims on No-Fly List”, New York Times, 10/06/2020, VIEW

“Supreme Court Weighs Monetary Damages Under Religious Freedom Law”, Wall Street Journal, 10/06/2020, VIEW

“At Supreme Court A Case On Abuse Of The No Fly List,“ New York Times, 02/24/2020 VIEW

“The FBI Allegedly Used the No-Fly List to Coerce Muslims to be Informants,” The Atlantic, 06/23/2014, VIEW

“Lawsuit Alleges FBI Is Using No Fly List To Force Muslims To Become Informants,” Washington Post, 06/22/2014, VIEW