In March, Gov. Bill Lee signed into law a bill (SB 228/HB 3) that bans trans students from participating in school sports. Two federal courts have blocked similar laws in Idaho and West Virginia, while a federal court in Connecticut has dismissed a challenge to that state’s policies that supports participation for trans students. Luc, along with his parents, have sued Tennessee because he is now denied the opportunity to try out for the boy’s golf team.
I was introduced to golf when I was about to turn 11. My mom took me to a golf clinic for kids at a local driving range. I got a free golf lesson from a coach and right away I was so hooked that my parents signed me up for weekly lessons. At the time, all I knew was I had fun and wanted to have a sport to get better at and was having a hard time finding one. I had tried soccer and basketball, but I was not interested in those sports and wanted to try and find something I liked better.
Over time, after getting better at hitting the ball and putting, it just got fun trying to work on my aim and technique. When I was in 7th grade, I found out there was a golf team at my school and I thought it would be good to have a team to play with. I wanted to get tips and watch other people play and see what I would have to improve on or what I was doing right.
After playing with the girl’s golf team previously, it started to feel wrong because I did not feel like I fit in with them, even though they were all kind to me. I felt out of place. It wasn’t just that I wanted to wear pants when all the girls on the team wanted to wear skirts — I felt awkward and knew this wasn’t the team for me. I am a boy, and I want to be on the boys’ golf team so I can play among other boys.
Luc aspires to play golf with other boys, freely. He’s pictured here with his mom, Shelley.
Shawn Poynter/ACLU
My favorite experience playing on the team was when we were in a competition against other schools. We did not win the whole competition, but there were also prizes we could win on specific holes. My best friend L. and I both won prizes that day. I was so proud of myself and L., and our whole team!
Since Tennessee’s ban on trans kids in sports passed, the main reason I’m suing the state is because it bothers me a lot to think some kids won’t play sports at all and other kids could feel as out of place as I did, especially if they aren’t on a team with their best friend like I was. It’s depressing to imagine other kids feeling so out of place and without a friend.
I have a strong peace of mind when I think how my parents are there to help me with golf, the lawsuit, and life. Filing this lawsuit lets me say that I feel disrespected and mistreated. I can’t control the law that was passed, but just because it was passed, it doesn’t mean it was right. I have standards for how I want to be treated. I want to be respected. That’s what my parents want, and it’s what I feel my peers would want. What the state has done has not even come close to those standards.
To other trans youth: I want to tell you to fight for what you believe is right and to stand up for yourself. Nothing gets done if you don’t do anything about it.
Heather L. Weaver, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief
There are 13 churches in Horn Lake, Mississippi. But there are no mosques, and there never will be if city officials get their way. Earlier this year, the city’s Planning Commission and Board of Aldermen denied site-plan approval for the Abraham House of God mosque, even though the property for the proposed mosque is zoned for houses of worship and the city’s own staff determined that the application met or exceeded all requirements. One Alderman ominously warned, “if you let them build it, they will come,” exhorting his fellow board members to “stop it before it gets here.”
This type of bigotry has no place in our government. It violates the law, so the ACLU and the ACLU of Mississippi, along with the law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, filed a federal lawsuit against the city today. Brought on behalf of Abraham House of God and its co-founders, the lawsuit asserts that Horn Lake officials violated the First Amendment and the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which provides heightened legal protections for houses of worship in local zoning proceedings.
Abraham House of God, Horn Lake, MS, exterior and plan
Not only is there no mosque in Horn Lake, but there is no mosque within all of DeSoto County (the third largest Mississippi county by population) where Horn Lake sits. Without a local mosque, Muslim residents of the Horn Lake region, including our clients Riyadh Elkhayyat and Maher Abuirshaid and their families, must travel 35 to 40 minutes each way, across state lines, to worship communally at a mosque in neighboring Tennessee. It’s a significant hardship on their ability to practice their faith. For example, Friday is the Muslim holy day; it is observed during Friday afternoon worship services. But the families are often unable to attend these services because of the distance they must travel to reach the Tennessee mosque. More generally, because there is no local mosque, Muslim residents in the area have been unable to establish a local congregation to enjoy the type of spiritual bonds and close support system with their neighbors that a local church or other house of worship typically helps facilitate.
Wanting better for themselves and their families, Mr. Elkhayyat and Mr. Abuirshaid felt a religious calling to open a mosque closer to home. They established the Abraham House of God as a non-profit religious organization; purchased a piece of Horn Lake property already zoned for houses of worship; hired an architect and engineering firm to design the mosque; and submitted all the required paperwork to the city.
Abraham House of God, Horn Lake, MS, side view
Unfortunately, the anti-Muslim backlash was immediate. After one planning commission meeting, one person told Mr. Elkhayyat and Mr. Abuirshaid that they would only be allowed to build a mosque “over our dead bodies.” At another meeting, one resident asserted that, as Muslims, Mr. Elkhayyat and Mr. Abuirshaid “are not subject to our laws, they’re subject to their laws.” Though city staff reported that the site plan application met or exceeded all requirements, the commission voted against it, offering no reason except “majority rules.” The “majority” that ruled was presumably the anti-Muslim group of residents that had gathered at the meeting.
The mosque appealed the planning commission’s decision to the Horn Lake Board of Aldermen. That meeting, too, was packed with an audience opposed to the house of worship. During the meeting, board members asserted that the mosque would violate local noise ordinances because of speakers announcing the call to prayer. In fact, the design plans did not include any outdoor speakers, and Mr. Elkhayyat repeatedly told the board there would be none. Board members also claimed that the mosque would create traffic hazards. But that wasn’t true. Finally, one board member contended that the city water mains would not provide adequate water pressure for a sprinkler system for the mosque. There was no evidence to support his claim, and there are various methods for ensuring that the mosque has adequate protection against fires.
Abraham House of God, Horn Lake, MS, rear view
All three excuses that the board cited for shutting down the mosque project were pretexts meant to distract from the only true reason the Board offered: the fear that, “if you build it, they will come.” Then-Alderman John Jones, who made the anti-Muslim comment during the board’s hearing, later raged, “I don’t care what they say, their religion says they can lie or do anything to the Jews or gentiles because we’re not Muslims.” And, in case there was any doubt that anti-Muslim prejudice was at the heart of the city’s actions, a few days later, another alderman, Charlie Roberts, admitted that the board had “stepped over the line” by discriminating against the mosque, Mr. Elkhayyat, and Mr. Abuirshaid “because they’re Muslims.”
Roberts, who voted against the site plan but had a change of heart after visiting a mosque in Memphis, called Mr. Elkhayyat to apologize for the board’s bigotry. He also texted a message to Mr. Elkhayyat: “M-Muslims D-Deserve W-Worship.” We could not agree more. Sadly, this is not the only instance of local government officials discriminating against mosques. We will do everything in our power to vindicate our clients’ rights and ensure that Muslims in the Horn Lake area can worship at the Abraham House of God as soon as possible.
In 2006, the FBI ordered an informant to pose as a Muslim convert and spy on the congregants of several large, diverse mosques in Orange County, California. The agent, Craig Monteilh, professed his conversion before hundreds of congregants during the month of Ramadan. Renaming himself “Farouk,” the informant quickly made friends and impressed members of the community with his seeming devotion. The whole time, he was secretly recording conversations and filming inside people’s homes, mosques, and businesses using devices hidden in everyday objects, like the keychain fob of his car keys.
Plaintiff Sheik Yassir Fazaga.
John Mofield
Among those subjected to FBI spying were Sheik Yassir Fazaga, the imam of the Orange County Islamic Foundation (OCIF), and Ali Uddin Malik and Yasser Abdelrahim, congregants at the Islamic Center of Irvine (ICOI). Together, they sued the FBI in 2011 for unlawfully targeting Muslim community members in violation of their constitutional rights to religious freedom and privacy. The FBI attempted to stop the litigation of the plaintiffs’ religious discrimination claims by arguing that further proceedings could reveal state secrets. After an appeals court ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor in 2019, the FBI appealed to the Supreme Court, which will hear the case on Nov. 8.
Ahead of their Supreme Court hearing, the three plaintiffs joined At Liberty to discuss how FBI surveillance impacted their lives and communities, how the harmful effects linger 15 years later, and what they hope to achieve in challenging the FBI.
In 2006, Monteilh reached out to Sheik Fazaga to discuss his apparent interest in converting to Islam. He said he was of Syrian and French descent and wanted to embrace his roots. Days later, he announced his conversion at Friday prayer, reciting the shahada (the Islamic declaration of faith) before hundreds of congregants at the mosque. Monteilh renamed himself Farouk and started attending prayers multiple times per day, every day.
“6:00 a.m all the way to 10:00 p.m.,” says Hussam Ayloush of the Council on American-Islamic Relations – California (CAIR-CA), one of the organizations serving as co-counsel on the case, along with the ACLU. “That’s a lot of dedication to come to these prayers. Very impressive.”
Plaintiff Ali Uddin Malik.
Wey Wang
Word spread about the new convert within ICOI and other mosques in the Orange County area, which Monteilh also frequented on a regular basis. Congregants reached out to him to introduce themselves, buying him books on Islam, showing him the movements of prayers, taking him out for tea, and inviting him into their homes for dinners, where he would often meet congregants’ families and friends. Many young congregants were drawn to him, dazzled by his stories about working as a personal trainer in Hollywood and the NFL. “We spent the time either hanging out, talking, praying, playing FIFA, or watching [the] news every once in a while,” says Abdelrahim.
Conversations about working out and other small talk eventually dissipated, however, as Monteilh began to talk about violence, including by expressing a warped interpretation of jihad, a term referring to any internal or external struggle facing an individual or community. Younger members of the congregation, like Malik and Abdelrahim, noticed the strange shift but initially gave him the benefit of the doubt. Some thought that Monteilh’s comments were based on misguided ignorance about Islam. Amidst widespread, post-9/11 Islamophobia, it wasn’t hard to believe. But when congregants tried to explain to Monteilh that Islam does not condone violence, he pushed back.
One day, while returning to his car on his way out from a last-minute chiropractor’s appointment, Abdelrahim was met by FBI agents waiting for him in the parking lot. “Obviously, I was a little shocked,” he says. “A lot of questions [were] going through my mind. Number one, how do you know I’m here?” The FBI agents took him to a nearby Starbucks, where they questioned him about his opinions on terrorism. “I really was laughing at the question itself because it’s just absurd,” says Yasser. At that point, he realized they had been spying on him.
Plaintiff Yasser Abdelrahim.
Wey Wang
Soon it became evident that the convert was not who he said he was, and that he was potentially dangerous. Congregants reported Monteilh to community leaders, the police, and eventually the FBI itself. But they didn’t learn he was an informant until two years later, when he was publicly identified and began to speak openly about the operation.
They learned that between 2006 and 2007, Monteilh had indiscriminately gathered names, phone numbers, and email addresses as he secretly filmed and recorded congregants in their homes, mosques, and businesses. He used hidden cameras and recording devices to spy on community members even when he was not physically present. Monteilh’s FBI handlers told him they had a listening device in Fazaga’s office, where he had confidential conversations with congregants who sought his guidance in therapy sessions. Monteilh also had an audio recorder hidden in the keychain fob of his car keys, which he would leave behind, seemingly by accident, in the prayer hall. When anybody found the keys, they would bring them to the imam’s office, which served as a lost and found. There, the device could potentially record confidential conversations between the imam and people who sought his guidance.
“I promised my clients confidentiality,” says Sheik Fazaga. “I don’t say anything without their permission. But to know that the FBI was actually recording these sessions, that is illegal, it is unethical, it is not constitutional, and it puts a lot of people’s lives in jeopardy and their well-being and their rights of privacy.”
The FBI had been surveilling Muslims in Southern California, home to one of the largest Muslim populations in the United States, since late 2001. The agency had created a list of names, religious leaders and mosques, and would often send agents to show up unannounced at people’s homes and question them about their religious practice without any discernible relationship to criminal activity.
“FBI agents told [Monteilh] to focus on people who are more devout, like Ali Malik, who was wearing religious clothing, and like Sheik Fazaga because he was a religious leader,” says Ahilan Arulanantham, one of the lead attorneys on the case. “Once we learned that information, we filed a lawsuit challenging the FBI’s conduct on constitutional and federal statutory grounds.”
“The FBI was not monitoring individuals. The FBI was monitoring the entire community.”
– Sh. Fazaga
While Monteilh left the Orange County Muslim community after community members took action, his impact was widespread and enduring. Sheik Fazaga had worked for years to foster trust between congregants and the U.S. government in the aftermath of 9/11, even inviting the FBI to speak with members of his mosque in a community town hall. “They looked us all in the eyes and assured us unequivocally that they were not spying on us,” says Fazaga. “We trusted them. But they lied, and our sacred community was shaken to its core.”
Plaintiffs Yasser Abdelrahim, Sh. Yassir Fazaga, and Ali Uddin Malik in front of the Supreme Court on Nov. 8.
Will Martinez
Since 9/11, the government has frequently abused the “state secrets privilege” to escape accountability, including by shutting down lawsuits by survivors of torture, ending litigation of unlawful government surveillance, and covering up misconduct and other abuses in the name of national security.
“The government cannot hide behind state secrets to pretend everything is national security,” says attorney Ahilan Arulanantham. “An independent judge or entity should be able to sort through the evidence and decide whether this constitutes state secrets or not.”
The federal district court accepted the FBI’s state secrets argument and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims that the FBI unlawfully targeted them based on their religion. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals then disagreed and instructed the district court to consider the religious discrimination claims under procedures mandated by Congress in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which specify how courts should handle cases involving surveillance conducted for national security purposes. The FBI appealed the case, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear it. Oral arguments will be held on Nov. 8.
Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube-nocookie.com.
Listen to the full conversation on ACLU's At Liberty podcast, found here.
The plaintiffs are represented by the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, the ACLU of Southern California, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Council for American-Islamic Relations – California (CAIR-CA), and the law firm of Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai.
