Hassan v. City of N.Y., No. 14–1688.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
Writing for the CourtAMBRO, Circuit Judge.
Citation804 F.3d 277
Decision Date13 October 2015
Docket NumberNo. 14–1688.
PartiesSyed Farhaj HASSAN; The Council of Imams in New Jersey; Muslim Students Association of the U.S. and Canada, Inc.; All Body Shop Inside & Outside; Unity Beef Sausage Company; Muslim Foundation Inc.; Moiz Mohammed; Jane Doe; Soofia Tahir; Zaimah Abdur–Rahim; Abdul–Hakim Abdullah, Appellants v. The CITY OF NEW YORK.

804 F.3d 277

Syed Farhaj HASSAN; The Council of Imams in New Jersey; Muslim Students Association of the U.S. and Canada, Inc.; All Body Shop Inside & Outside; Unity Beef Sausage Company; Muslim Foundation Inc.; Moiz Mohammed; Jane Doe; Soofia Tahir; Zaimah Abdur–Rahim; Abdul–Hakim Abdullah, Appellants
v.
The CITY OF NEW YORK.

No. 14–1688.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued Jan. 13, 2015.
Opinion Filed Oct. 13, 2015.

As Amended Feb. 2, 2016.


804 F.3d 282

Baher A. Azmy, Esquire, (Argued), Ghita Schwarz, Esquire, Omar Farah, Esquire, Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, N.Y., Glenn Katon, Esquire, Farhana Khera, Esquire, Adil Haq, Esquire, Muslim Advocates, Oakland, CA, Lawrence S. Lustberg, Esquire, Joseph A. Pace, Esquire, Portia Dolores Pedro, Esquire, Gibbons, Newark, NJ, Counsel for Appellants.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, Richard P. Dearing, Esquire, Peter G. Farrell, Esquire, (Argued), Celeste Koeleveld, Esquire, Alexis Leist, Esquire, Anthony DiSenso, Esquire, William Oates, Esquire, Cheryl Shammas, Esquire, Odile Farrell, Esquire, New York City Law Department, New York, N.Y., Counsel for Appellee.

Ayesha N. Khan, Esquire, Gregory M. Lipper, Esquire, Alexander J. Luchenitser, Esquire, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Washington, DC, Counsel for Amicus Appellant, Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Benjamin C. Block, Esquire, William Murray, Esquire, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC, Stephen J. Schulhofer, Esquire, New York, N.Y., Robert L. Rusky, Esquire, San Francisco, CA, Counsel for Amicus Appellants, Karen Korematsu, Jay Hirabayashi, Holly Yasui.

804 F.3d 283

Brian D. Boyle, Esquire, Walter E. Dellinger, III, Esquire, Deanna M. Rice, Esquire, Nausheen Hassan, Esquire, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC, Counsel for Amicus Appellants, 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care, Chris Burbank, Eric Adams.

Gregory J. Wallance, Esquire, W. Stewart Wallace, Esquire, Kaye Scholer LLP, New York, N.Y., Michael Robertson, Esquire, Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, DC, Counsel for Amicus Appellants, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, American Arab Anti–Discrimination Committee, Universal Muslim Association of America Advocacy, South Asian Americans Leading Together, Shia Rights Watch, New Jersey Muslim Lawyers Association, National Network for Arab American Communities, National Lawyers Guild New York City Chapter, Muslim Public Affairs Council, Muslim Legal Fund of America, Muslim Consultative Network, Muslim Bar Association of New York, Muslim American Civil Liberties Coalition, Creating Law Enforcement Accountability and Responsibility, Arab American Association of New York, Asian Americans Advancing Justice–Asian Law Caucus, South Asian Organization, Project SALAM.

Ronald K. Chen, Esquire, Rutgers University Constitutional Rights Clinic, Newark, NJ, Edward Barocas, Esquire, Jeanne LoCicero, Esquire, Alexander Shalom, Esquire, American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation, Newark, NJ, Counsel for Amicus Appellants, American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Bill of Rights Defense Committee, Garden State Bar, Association, Hispanic Bar Association of New Jersey, Association of Black Women Lawyers of New Jersey.

Bruce D. Brown, Esquire, Gregg P. Leslie, Esquire, Jamie T. Schuman, Esquire, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Arlington, VA, Jennifer A. Borg, Esquire, North Jersey Media Group Inc., Woodland Park, NJ, Counsel for Amicus Appellants, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, North Jersey Media Group Inc.

Michael W. Price, Esquire, Faiza Patel, Esquire, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, New York, N.Y., Counsel for Amicus Appellant, Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law

Allen P. Pegg, Esquire, Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, Miami, FL, Counsel for Amicus Appellants, Sikh Coalition, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, Union for Reform Judaism, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Women of Reform Judaism, Islamic Society of North America, Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice, Hindu Temple Society of North America, Auburn Theological Seminary, National Council of Jewish Women, Universal Muslim Association of America, American Humanist Association, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Muslim Alliance in North America National Religious Campaign Against Torture, Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, Imam Mahdi Association of Marjaeya, Muslims for Peace, T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, Ta'leef Collective, Muslim Congress, Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of New Jersey, Queens Federation of Churches, Inc., Northern California Islamic Council, Council of Islamic Organization of Greater Chicago, Islamic Shura Council of Southern California.

Before: AMBRO, FUENTES, and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

804 F.3d 284

OPINION OF THE COURT

AMBRO, Circuit Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 284
II. BACKGROUND 285
A. Plaintiffs' Allegations 285
1. The Program 285
2. Reports and Informational Databases 286
3. Fall–Out from the Program's Disclosure to the Public 287
B. District Court 288
III. STANDING 289
A. Injury–in–Fact 289
B. Fair Traceability 292
C. Redressability 293
IV. CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS 294
A. Equal–Protection Claim 294
1. Do Plaintiffs Plausibly Allege Intentional Discrimination? 294
i. Plaintiffs Plausibly Allege a Surveillance Program with a Facially Religious Classification 294
ii. Intentional Discrimination Does Not Require an Invidious Motive. 297
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
115 practice notes
  • A.M. ex rel. F.M. v. Holmes, Nos. 14-2066
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • July 25, 2016
    ...governmental conduct involving, inter alia , “suspect” or “quasi-suspect” classifications of groups); accord Hassan v. City of New York , 804 F.3d 277, 298 (3d Cir. 2015) (“At a minimum, intentional discrimination against any ‘identifiable group’ is subject to rational-basis review, which r......
  • Doe v. Perkiomen Valley Sch. Dist., Civil Action 22-cv-287
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • February 7, 2022
    ...whether the Parent-Plaintiffs have standing. Dep't of Com. v. New York, 139 S.Ct. 2551, 2565 (2019); see also Hassan v. City of New York, 804 F.3d 277, 291 (3d Cir. 2015) (“Harm to all-even in the nuanced world of standing law-cannot be logically equated with harm to no one.”). III. EXHAUST......
  • United States v. Baroni, No. 17-1817
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • November 27, 2018
    ...runs all through the law." Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144, 155 (7th Cir.1995) (Posner, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 804 F.3d 277, 297 (3d Cir. 2015).The District Judge properly instructed the jury, for example, that to find Defendants guilty of wire fraud, the Governmen......
  • Mack v. Warden Loretto FCI, No. 14-2738
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • October 11, 2016
    ...claims under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Abdul–Akbar v. McKelvie , 239 F.3d 307, 317 (3d Cir. 2001).113 See Hassan v. City of New York , 804 F.3d 277, 294, 298 (3d Cir. 2015).114 Compl. 1.115 Mack , No. 3:10–cv–264, ECF No. 42, at 5.116 Am. Compl. ¶ 23. See id. ¶ 35 (alleging that Roberts an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
104 cases
  • Demetro v. N.A. of Bunco Investigations, Civ. No. 14-6521 (KM) (SCM)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • June 25, 2019
    ...have been a substantial factor" in the allegedly different treatment that he received by defendants. Hassan v. City of New York, 804 F.3d 277, 294 (3d Cir. 2015). As to discriminatory effect, plaintiff has adequately established that he is a member of a protected ethnic class.21 Theref......
  • Mack v. Warden Loretto FCI, No. 14-2738
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • October 11, 2016
    ...claims under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Abdul–Akbar v. McKelvie , 239 F.3d 307, 317 (3d Cir. 2001).113 See Hassan v. City of New York , 804 F.3d 277, 294, 298 (3d Cir. 2015).114 Compl. 1.115 Mack , No. 3:10–cv–264, ECF No. 42, at 5.116 Am. Compl. ¶ 23. See id. ¶ 35 (alleging that Roberts an......
  • Ashaheed v. Currington, No. 20-1237
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • August 10, 2021
    ...discrimination involves an intent to treat a group differently. Animus is hostility toward a group. See Hassan v. City of New York , 804 F.3d 277, 297-98 (3d Cir. 2015), as amended (Feb. 2, 2016). Intentional religious discrimination can but need not include animus or hostility toward relig......
  • Cottrell v. Laboratories, No. 16-2015.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • October 18, 2017
    ...on effective doses. I find this assumption untenable, and therefore I will not address the theories separately.2 Hassan v. City of N.Y., 804 F.3d 277, 289 (3d Cir. 2015).3 Id.4 In re Schering Plough Corp. Intron/Temodar Consumer Class Action, 678 F.3d 235, 243 (3d Cir. 2012).5 In re Horizon......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT