Tanvir v. FNU Tanzin
| Decision Date | 02 May 2018 |
| Docket Number | August Term, 2016,Docket No. 16-1176 |
| Citation | 894 F.3d 449 |
| Parties | Muhammad TANVIR, Jameel Algibhah, Naveed Shinwari, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FNU TANZIN, Special Agent, FBI; Sanya Garcia, Special Agent, FBI; John LNU, Special Agent, FBI; Francisco Artusa, Special Agent, FBI; John C. Harley III, Special Agent, FBI; Steven LNU, Special Agent, FBI; Michael LNU, Special Agent, FBI; Gregg Grossoehmig, Special Agent, FBI; Weysan Dun, Special Agent in Charge, FBI; James C. Langenberg, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, FBI; John Doe #1, Special Agent, FBI; John Doe #2, Special Agent, FBI; John Doe #3, Special Agent, FBI; John Doe #4, Special Agent, FBI; John Doe #5, Special Agent, FBI; John Doe #6, Special Agent, FBI, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Ramzi Kassem, Clear Project, Main Street Legal Services, Inc., City University of New York School of Law (Naz Ahmad, on the brief), Long Island City, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Jennifer R. Cowan, Erol Gulay, Sandy Tomasik, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Shayana D. Kadidal, Baher Azmy, Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Ellen Blain, Assistant United States Attorney (Sarah S. Normand, Benjamin H. Torrance, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), for Joon H. Kim, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: KATZMANN, Chief Judge, POOLER and LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Muhammad Tanvir, Jameel Algibah, and Naveed Shinwari ("Plaintiffs") appeal from a February 17, 2016 final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Abrams, J .), dismissing their complaint against senior federal law enforcement officials and 25 named and unnamed federal law enforcement officers. As relevant here, the complaint alleged that, in retaliation for Plaintiffs' refusal to serve as informants, federal officers improperly placed or retained Plaintiffs' names on the "No Fly List," in violation of Plaintiffs' rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. ("RFRA").
The complaint sought (1) injunctive and declaratory relief against all defendants in their official capacities for various constitutional and statutory violations, and (2) compensatory and punitive damages from federal law enforcement officers in their individual capacities for violations of their rights under the First Amendment and RFRA. As relevant here, the district court held that RFRA does not permit the recovery of money damages against federal officers sued in their individual capacities.
Plaintiffs appeal that RFRA determination only.
Because we disagree with the district court, and hold that RFRA permits a plaintiff to recover money damages against federal officers sued in their individual capacities for violations of RFRA's substantive protections, we reverse the district court's judgment and remand for further proceedings.
On appeal from the district court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' complaint, we "accept[ ] as true factual allegations in the complaint, and draw[ ] all reasonable inferences in the favor of the plaintiffs." Town of Babylon v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency , 699 F.3d 221, 227 (2d Cir. 2012).
I. Relevant Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiffs are Muslim men who reside in New York or Connecticut. Each was born abroad, immigrated to the United States early in his life, and is now lawfully present here as either a U.S. citizen or as a permanent resident. Each has family remaining overseas.
Plaintiffs assert that they were each approached by federal agents and asked to serve as informants for the FBI. Specifically, Plaintiffs were asked to gather information on members of Muslim communities and report that information to the FBI.2 In some instances, the FBI's request was accompanied with severe pressure, including threats of deportation or arrest; in others, the request was accompanied by promises of financial and other assistance. Regardless, Plaintiffs rebuffed those repeated requests, at least in part based on their sincerely-held religious beliefs. In response to these refusals, the federal agents maintained Plaintiffs on the national "No Fly List," despite the fact that Plaintiffs "do[ ] not pose, ha[ve] never posed, and ha[ve] never been accused of posing, a threat to aviation safety." App'x at 74, 84, 92 ¶¶ 68, 118, 145.
According to the complaint, Defendants "forced Plaintiffs into an impermissible choice between, on the one hand, obeying their sincerely held religious beliefs and being subjected to the punishment of placement or retention on the No Fly List, or, on the other hand, violating their sincerely held religious beliefs in order to avoid being placed on the No Fly List or to secure removal from the No Fly List." App'x at 109 ¶ 210. Plaintiffs allege that this dilemma placed a substantial burden on their exercise of religion.
Additionally, Defendants' actions caused Plaintiffs to suffer emotional distress, reputational harm, and economic loss. As a result of Defendants' actions placing and retaining Plaintiffs on the "No Fly List," Plaintiffs were prohibited from flying for several years. Such prohibition prevented Plaintiffs from visiting family members overseas, caused Plaintiffs to lose money they had paid for plane tickets, and hampered Plaintiffs' ability to travel for work.3
In an effort to ensure aircraft security, Congress directed the Transportation Security Administration ("TSA") to establish procedures for notifying appropriate officials of the identity of individuals "known to pose, or suspected of posing, a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline or passenger safety." 49 U.S.C. § 114(h)(2). TSA was further instructed to "utilize all appropriate records in the consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist maintained by the Federal Government" to perform a passenger prescreening function. 49 U.S.C. § 44903(j)(2)(C)(ii).
The "No Fly List" is one such terrorist watchlist and is part of a broader database developed and maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center ("TSC"), which is administered by the FBI. The TSC's database contains information about individuals who are known or reasonably suspected of being involved in terrorist activity. The TSC shares the names of individuals on the "No Fly List" with federal and state law enforcement agencies, the TSA, airline representatives, and cooperating foreign governments.
Plaintiffs allege that federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies may "nominate" an individual for inclusion in the TSC's database, including the "No Fly List," if there is "reasonable suspicion" that the person is a "known or suspected terrorist." App'x at 68 ¶ 41. In order for a nominated individual to be added to the "No Fly List," there must be additional "derogatory information" showing that the individual "pose[s] a threat of committing a terrorist act with respect to an aircraft." App'x at 68 ¶ 42. Any person placed on the "No Fly List" is barred from boarding a plane that starts in, ends in, or flies over the United States.4
Plaintiffs claim that the federal agents named in the amended complaint "exploited the significant burdens imposed by the No Fly List, its opaque nature and ill-defined standards, and its lack of procedural safeguards, in an attempt to coerce Plaintiffs into serving as informants within their American Muslim communities and places of worship." App'x at 59 ¶ 8. When rebuffed, the federal agents "retaliated against Plaintiffs by placing or retaining them on the No Fly List." Id.
As did the district court below, we present Tanvir's story as illustrative of Plaintiffs' experiences.
At the time the complaint was filed, Tanvir was a lawful permanent resident living in Queens, New York. Tanvir's wife, son, and parents remain in Pakistan. In February 2007, Tanvir alleged that FBI Special Agents FNU Tanzin and John Doe 1 approached him at work and questioned him for 30 minutes about an acquaintance who allegedly entered the United States illegally. Two days later, Agent Tanzin called Tanvir and asked whether he had anything he "could share" with the FBI about the American Muslim community. App'x at 74 ¶ 70. Tanvir said he told Agent Tanzin that he knew nothing relevant to law enforcement.
In July 2008, after returning home from a trip to Pakistan to visit his family, Tanvir was detained by federal agents for five hours at JFK Airport. His passport was confiscated and he was told he could retrieve it on January 28, 2009, nearly six months later. Two days prior to that appointment, Agent Tanzin and FBI Special Agent John Doe 2 visited Tanvir at his new workplace and asked him to come to the FBI's Manhattan field office. Tanvir agreed.
At the FBI field office, the federal agents questioned Tanvir for about an hour. The agents asked Tanvir whether he was aware of Taliban training camps near his home village in Pakistan and whether he had Taliban training. Tanvir denied knowledge of the camps or participation in such training.
After the questioning, Agents Tanzin and John Doe 2 complimented Tanvir and asked him to work as an informant for the FBI in Pakistan or Afghanistan. Tanvir alleged that they offered him various incentives, including facilitating visits for his family to the United States and paying for his parents' religious pilgrimage. Despite the offer, Tanvir declined, stating that he did not want to be an informant. The agents persisted, threatening Tanvir that his passport would not be returned and he would be deported if he failed to cooperate. Tanvir implored the agents not to deport him. At the meeting's end, the agents asked Tanvir to reconsider and to keep their conversation private.
The next day, Agent Tanzin...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yale New Haven Hosp. v. Becerra
...1395ww(r)(3) ). "We normally assume that, when Congress enacts statutes, it is aware of relevant judicial precedent." Tanvir v. Tanzin , 894 F.3d 449, 463 (2d Cir. 2018) (quoting Ryan v. Gonzales , 568 U.S. 57, 66, 133 S.Ct. 696, 184 L.Ed.2d 528, (2013) ); see also, e.g. , Mobil Cerro Negro......
-
United States v. Martin
...of interpretive tools, including ... statutory structure[ ] and legislative history to discern meaning."); see also Tanvir v. Tanzin , 894 F.3d 449, 463 (2d Cir. 2018) ("Congress is presumed to legislate with familiarity of the legal backdrop for its legislation."), cert. granted , ––– U.S.......
-
Fazaga v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation
...two other circuits have held that damages are available for RFRA suits against individual-capacity defendants. See Tanvir v. Tanzin , 894 F.3d 449, 467 (2d Cir. 2018) ; Mack v. Warden Loretto FCI , 839 F.3d 286, 302 (3d Cir. 2016).43 Presbyterian Church predates Employment Division v. Smith......
-
Fazaga v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation
...two other circuits have held that damages are available for RFRA suits against individual-capacity defendants. See Tanvir v. Tanzin , 894 F.3d 449, 467 (2d Cir. 2018) ; Mack v. Warden Loretto FCI , 839 F.3d 286, 302 (3d Cir. 2016).43 Presbyterian Church predates Employment Division v. Smith......
-
RECALIBRATING QUALIFIED IMMUNITY: HOW TANZIN V. TANVIR, TAYLOR V. RIOJAS, AND MCCOY V. ALAMU SIGNAL THE SUPREME COURT'S DISCOMFORT WITH THE DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.
...141 S. Ct. 486 (2020). (220) 42U.S.C. [section]2000bb-2(l). (221) Tanzin, 141 S. Ct. at 492, n*. (222) Id. at 489. (223) Tanvir v. Tanzin, 894 F.3d 449, 453 (2d Cir. 2018). The Second Circuit's opinion describes behavior by the FBI that sounds an awful lot like a protection racket. In one i......
-
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY INTEREST CONVERGENCE.
...(335.) Id. (336.) Id. (337.) Tanvir v. Tanzin, 894 F.3d 449, 454 (2d Cir. 2018), aff'd, 141 S. Ct. 486 (338.) Id. (339.) Id. (340.) Id. (341.) Id. (342.) Id. (343.) Id. at 455. (344.) Id. (345.) Id. (346.) Id. (347.) Id. (348.) Id. (349.) Id. (350.) Id. (351.) Id. (352.) Id. (353.) Id. (354......