Opinion ID: 3066758
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Fall-Out from the Program’s Disclosure

Text: to the Public Plaintiffs claim that, despite “initial secrecy,” public knowledge of the alleged Program’s existence “has become widespread in New Jersey and elsewhere.” Id. ¶ 45. They also contend that a number of the allegedly generated reports “ha[ve] been widely publicized,” id. ¶ 20, and that each Plaintiff has been “either specifically named in an NYPD spying report or is a member of at least one mosque or other association named in such a report,” Pls.’ Br. 21 (citing Compl. ¶¶ 12–15, 17–26, 28–29, 31–32, 34). Plaintiffs have learned since the news broke, for 14 instance, that the NYPD’s so-called “Newark report” designates several of them as a “Location of Concern,” defined “as, among other things, a ‘location that individuals may find co-conspirators for illegal actions,’ and a ‘location that has demonstrated a significant pattern of illegal activities.’” Compl. ¶ 58. Similarly, the NYPD’s “U.S.–Iran report” describes organizations believed to pose serious threats to New York City, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, along with a list of “Other Shi’a Locations in the vicinity of NYC,” which include Plaintiff Muslim Foundation Inc. (“MFI”) and Masjid-e-Ali mosque (owned and operated by MFI), “as well as three additional mosques attended by Plaintiff Hassan.” Id. ¶ 60. While Plaintiffs allege that the Program is stigmatizing by itself, they also claim these specific defamatory statements targeting them in particular have intensified their harms and that “New York City officials” have exacerbated these injuries by publicly “acknowledg[ing] the [Program’s] existence” and “describing it as focused on ‘threats’ and as an attempt to document the ‘likely whereabouts of terrorists.’” Id. ¶ 61. “Discussing the surveillance, [former] Mayor Bloomberg has stated publicly” that “[w]e’re doing the right thing. We will continue to do the right thing.” Id. ¶ 64. And “[former Police] Commissioner Kelly has said” that “[w]e’re going to continue to do what we have to do to protect the [C]ity.” Id. Plaintiffs state that these and other “official proclamations,” which “falsely suggest that Muslims alone present a unique law enforcement threat,” indicate “that [City officials] believe the NYPD’s targeting of Muslims for surveillance on the basis of their religion is appropriate and will continue.” Id. ¶¶ 64–65. Plaintiffs also contend that, in large part because of the Program’s alleged stigmatizing and reputational consequences, the surveillance has affected their worship and 15 religious activities. For example, Plaintiff Hassan, a soldier in the U.S. Army who has worked in military intelligence, asserts that “[h]e has decreased his mosque attendance significantly” because of his belief that “being closely affiliated with mosques under surveillance by law enforcement” will jeopardize his ability to hold a security clearance and will tarnish his reputation among his fellow soldiers and diminish their trust in him. Id. ¶¶ 11–13. Likewise, Plaintiffs Moiz Mohammed, Jane Doe, and Soofia Tahir state that they now avoid (or have avoided) discussing their faith openly or at MSA meetings for fear of being watched and documented, id. ¶¶ 24–30, and Plaintiff Mohammad alleges that “[t]he stigma now attached to being a Muslim member of the MSA has caused [him] to avoid discussing his faith or his MSA participation in public and to avoid praying in places where non-Muslims might see him doing so,” id. ¶ 25. The individual Plaintiffs are not the only ones affected. The organizational Plaintiffs allege that the Program “has undermined their ability to fulfill their mission[s by] deterring potential members from joining and casting doubt on [their] ability to maintain the confidentiality of their membership.” Pls.’ Br. 6 (citing Compl. ¶ 17). According to the Complaint, two mosques that are members of Plaintiff Council of Imams in New Jersey, and that are named in the NYPD’s Newark report, “have . . . seen a decline in attendance . . . as a result of the [NYPD’s] surveillance” because their congregants can no longer worship freely knowing that law-enforcement agents or informants are likely in their midst. Compl. ¶ 15. Similarly, “[a]s affinity student groups, MSAs subject to surveillance . . . are diminished in their ability to establish viable student organizations that students will feel secure joining and participating in” and are less able “to embark upon integral partnerships with campus administrators and other organizations and [to] fulfill the spiritual needs of their 16 members in a confidential manner.” Id. ¶ 17. And Plaintiff MFI has changed its religious and educational programming to avoid controversial topics likely to stigmatize its membership further and to attract additional NYPD attention. Id. ¶ 23. Finally, several Plaintiffs also contend that financial harm has accompanied their alleged religious, reputational, and stigmatizing injuries. For example, Plaintiffs All Shop Body Inside & Outside and Unity Beef Sausage Company claim that the surveillance has damaged their “business[es] by scaring away customers,” id. ¶¶ 19, 21, and Plaintiffs Zaimah Abdur-Rahim and Abdul-Hakim Abdullah allege that the publication of the address and a photograph on the Internet of their home “in connection with the NYPD’s surveillance . . . has decreased [its] value . . . and diminished [its] prospects for sale,” id. ¶¶ 31–32, 34. Also, two of Plaintiff Council of Imams in New Jersey’s member mosques have witnessed “[l]osses in . . . financial support,” which further “harm[s] both mosques’ ability to fulfill their religious missions.” Id. ¶ 15.