Syed Hassan v. City of New York
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17776
| 3rd Cir. | 2015Background
- Plaintiffs (Muslim individuals and organizations) allege that beginning in 2002 the NYPD ran a secret surveillance program targeting Muslims in the NYC metro area (especially New Jersey) — monitoring mosques, Muslim student groups, businesses, and individuals using cameras, informants, undercover officers, maps, and databases.
- Plaintiffs allege the Program used religion and ethnicity as proxies for suspicion, produced reports (e.g., a "Newark report") identifying locations and individuals, and never generated a criminal lead; public disclosure of reports stigmatized plaintiffs and caused harms to worship, association, reputation, and businesses.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983/Monell alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause and the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment; they sought injunctive relief, expungement, declaratory relief, and damages.
- The district court dismissed for lack of standing and failure to state a claim; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Third Circuit reversed: it held plaintiffs had Article III standing (discriminatory treatment is a cognizable injury, traceable and redressable) and that plaintiffs plausibly alleged intentional, religion‑based discrimination sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge.
- The court held that religious affiliation classifications trigger heightened equal‑protection scrutiny (leaving exact tier — intermediate vs. strict — for later), and rejected the City’s arguments that national‑security motives or absence of overt animus defeated the claims; First Amendment claims not resolved on the motion-to-dismiss record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing: Article III injury, traceability, redressability | Discriminatory surveillance is a dignitary injury (denial of equal treatment) causing concrete harms (stigmatization, chill, reputational/financial loss) traceable to City and redressable by injunction/damages | Disclosure by AP (and others) breaks causal chain; plaintiffs lack particularized injury or only allege chilled speech | Plaintiffs have standing: discrimination itself is a cognizable injury, traceability can be indirect, and relief could redress harms |
| Plausibility of intentional discrimination (Rule 12(b)(6)) | Complaint alleges specific facts: Program targeted mosques, MSAs, lists of "ancestries of interest," maps/reports, undercover officers — religion was a substantial factor | Allegations are conclusory and Iqbal/Twombly insufficient; NYPD acted for public‑safety reasons post‑9/11 | Allegations are sufficiently specific to permit plausible inference of intentional, religion‑based classification; complaint survives dismissal |
| Level of scrutiny for religion‑based classification | Religious affiliation is an identity trait deserving heightened scrutiny given immutability, history of prejudice, and risk of stigma | City urges deference to law‑enforcement judgment and national‑security justification; implies rational‑basis suffices | Classifications based on religious affiliation are subject to heightened equal‑protection scrutiny (court need not decide intermediate v. strict at dismissal) |
| First Amendment (Free Exercise/Establishment) | Surveillance singling out Muslims burdens free exercise and shows nonneutral treatment; Establishment concerns where government favors/targets a religion | State investigative interests and post‑9/11 security concerns justify surveillance; New Jersey AG found no violation of state law | City waived thin First Amendment animus argument; court declines to dismiss First Amendment claims on pleadings — they remain for development |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Iqbals pleading framework; no evidentiary pleading required)
- Heckler v. Mathews, 465 U.S. 728 (denial of equal treatment is judicially cognizable injury)
- Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (historical caution about deference in national‑security contexts)
- Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (discriminatory purpose analysis under Free Exercise)
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (Establishment Clause test)
- Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (strict scrutiny for suspect classifications)
- United States v. Carolene Prods. Co., 304 U.S. 144 (Footnote 4; heightened scrutiny for discrete and insular minorities)