No Fly List Legal Battle: Muslim Men vs. FBI

A U.S. appeals court ruled against three Muslim men trying to sue FBI agents for placing them on the No Fly List, citing qualified immunity. The men claimed the placement violated their religious beliefs and cost them jobs and reputations, though the U.S. Supreme Court previously ruled they could seek damages.

A U.S. appeals court has decided that three Muslim men cannot seek legal recourse against FBI agents who placed them on the 'No Fly List' after they refused to serve as informants. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan stated that 16 agents were protected by qualified immunity, despite claims of 'improper behavior' and concerns of targeted actions against Muslims in the U.S.

Qualified immunity provides federal officials protection against liability for constitutional rights violations that were not 'clearly established' at the time the incident occurred. Muhammad Tanvir, Jameel Algibhah, and Naveed Shinwari took legal action in 2013 after their inclusion on the No Fly List, asserting it infringed upon their religious freedoms, damaged their employment prospects, and prevented them from familial ties abroad.

Although the men were ultimately removed from the No Fly List, they sought financial redress under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Previously, the U.S. Supreme Court had upheld their right to pursue damages; however, the recent decision on Tuesday favored the agents. Despite this, the court noted the misconduct by agents, emphasizing the improper nature of pressuring individuals into informant roles under false pretenses of terrorism.

The case has garnered attention and sparked legal advocacy, with Tanvir highlighting the prolonged fight to bring awareness and prevent recurrence of similar situations. The No Fly List was established following the September 11, 2001 attacks to deter suspected terrorists from boarding planes in the U.S.

(With inputs from agencies.)