Skip to the content

Related Items

  • NYCLU, ACLU Challenge Patriot Act Provision Used To Exclude Prominent Swiss Scholar From The United States
  • NYCLU And ACLU Ask Federal Court To Lift Visa Ban On Tariq Ramadan
  • Responding To Lawsuit, Government Backs Away From Claim That Swiss Muslim Scholar Endorsed Terrorism
  • Federal Judge Says Government Must Act On Muslim Scholar's Visa Request
  • U.S. Government Increasingly Blocking Entry At The Border Because Of Ideology, NYCLU Says
  • NYCLU Condemns State Department's Decision to Deny Visa to Oxford University Professor Who Criticized U.S. Policies
  • U.S. Government Illegally Censoring Speech At Border, Groups Tell Court
  • ACLU, NYCLU Challenge U.S. Exclusion of Renowned Muslim Scholar

    • American Academy of Religion et al. v. Chertoff et al. (Challenge to Ideological Exclusion under the Patriot Act)

    Case Status

    Open

    Case Description

    S.D.N.Y, Index No. 06-588 (direct)

    This case involves the government’s use of certain provisions of the USA Patriot Act in order to deny individuals’ visa requests.

    The symbolic plaintiff in this lawsuit, Tariq Ramadan, is a Muslim scholar of Swiss national origin. In February 2004, Ramadan was offered a tenured teaching position at the University of Notre Dame. However, in July 2004, the government revoked Ramadan’s nonimmigrant visa, thus preventing him from (among other things) teaching at the university. According to a government official, his visa was revoked because of Section 411(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the PATRIOT Act, otherwise known as the “ideological exclusion provision.” The provision allows the government to reject any alien who uses his or her position to promote or endorse terrorist activity. The plaintiffs challenged the provision on the grounds that it violates the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedures Act. In addition, plaintiffs argued that the government’s use of the provision also violated the First Amendment rights of numerous U.S. citizens; the government’s actions prevented Ramadan from teaching, thus preventing U.S. citizens from hearing his views.

    On Jan. 25, 2006, the NYCLU, in conjunction with the ACLU, filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. However, when Congress amended the Patriot Act, it chose to remove the ideological exclusion provision; therefore, the government could not use the ideological exclusion provision to deny Ramadan’s visa request. On June 23, 2006, the District Court ordered the government to decide on Ramadan’s visa status within ninety days of the decision.

    However, in September 2006, the government again denied Ramadan’s visa application. This time, the government denied the visa on the grounds that Ramadan’s actions constituted “material support” for a terrorist organization. In response to the government’s decision, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Feb. 2, 2007. The plaintiffs, in addition to asking the Court to declare the ideological exclusion provision unconstitutional, asked the Court to declare the material support provision of the PATRIOT Act in violation of the First Amendment and Administrative Procedures Act. On Feb. 23, 2007, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment.

    U.S. District Judge Paul A. Crotty ruled on Dec. 20, 2007 that Ramadan could be denied entry into the U.S. based on small donations he made between 1998 and 2002 to a Swiss charity that provides aid to Palestinians. The organization operates lawfully in Europe to this day, but the Bush administration claims the organization has supported Hamas. The case is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Briefs were filed on April28, 2008.

    Attorneys involved in this case include Arthur Eisenberg.

    For more information, see the ACLU's web feature on this lawsuit.

    Printer-friendly Version

    Join our Mailing List


    RSS ACLU