Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga
United States Supreme Court
595 U.S. 344, 142 S. Ct. 1051 (2022)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Muslims Yassir Fagaza, Ali Malik, and Yasser Abdel Rahim (collectively, Fagaza) (plaintiffs) filed a putative-class-action suit against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the United States government (defendants). Fagaza alleged that the FBI violated constitutional rights and federal statutes by engaging in unlawful, religion-motivated surveillance. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the FBI used a confidential informant to infiltrate a Muslim community. The informant allegedly gathered phone numbers or email addresses for thousands of Muslims and collected hundreds of hours of video and audio recordings from inside mosques, homes, and other private settings. The FBI moved to dismiss Fagaza’s claims, arguing that the state-secrets privilege required dismissal of the claims because disclosing counterintelligence information would harm national-security interests. Fagaza argued § 1806(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) rendered the state-secrets privilege inapplicable in this context. The district court held in the FBI’s favor and dismissed Fagaza’s claims. The court of appeals reversed, holding that § 1806(f) displaced the state-secrets privilege. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Alito, J.)
Dissent (Lucero, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.