Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga

Following the 9/11 attacks, the FBI placed a covert informant, Craig Monteilh, inside Southern California mosques to gather intelligence. Three Muslim Americans—Yassir Fazaga, Ali Uddin Malik, and Yasser Abdel Rahim—sued the FBI, alleging the surveillance was based on religion and violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Fourth Amendment, and other constitutional provisions. The government invoked the state secrets privilege, arguing that litigation would risk exposing classified national security information. The district court and the Ninth Circuit ruled that Section 1806(f) of FISA displaced the state secrets privilege and required the judge to privately review the contested evidence. On March 4, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that FISA does not replace the common-law state secrets privilege. The case was sent back to the lower courts, leaving the plaintiffs’ claims in significant procedural uncertainty.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that FISA does not displace the state secrets privilege, reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Whether Section 1806(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act displaces the common-law state secrets privilege, thereby requiring courts to review sensitive evidence in camera rather than dismissing the case at the government’s request.

The decision reinforced the executive branch’s ability to shut down civil lawsuits alleging unconstitutional surveillance by asserting state secrets, making it significantly harder for individuals to challenge government monitoring in court. Civil liberties groups warned that it places religious minorities in a legal vacuum, while national security proponents viewed it as essential to protecting sensitive intelligence methods. The ruling intensified calls for Congress to legislate a clearer framework that balances accountability and security.