Settlement Reached in Case of Muslim Clerics and Flight 300

[WSJ_law_blog]

Last week, a settlement was reached in an interesting lawsuit, one that pitted six Muslim clerics (three of whom are pictured) against US Airways, the organization that runs the Minneapolis airport, and a handful of individuals. Click here for the USA Today story on the settlement.

The backstory is likely to inflame some passions on either side of the debate. As described by the USA Today:

The imams were removed from a US Airways flight [from Minneapolis to Phoenix] on Nov. 20, 2006, after a passenger told a flight attendant that the six men had been praying loudly and cursing U.S. policies in Iraq before boarding the aircraft. Once on board, the men took separate seats in the cabin’s front, middle and back. Before the pilot asked them to get off the flight, he was told that two of the men asked for seat belt extenders, which could be used as weapons.

Airport police, consulting with the FBI, removed the men and questioned them. Authorities eventually determined the clerics were not a threat, and they took a different flight home.

The imams sued, claiming that their Fourth Amendment rights to be free of unlawful search and seizure was violated.

Minnesota federal judge Ann Montgomery in July granted summary judgment for US Airways, but left in place causes of action against several other defendants. Wrote Judge Montgomery:

Unquestionably the events of 9/11 changed the calculus in the balance American society chooses to make, especially in airport settings, between liberty and security. Ultimately, the proper balance will be achieved, in large part, because we have the most capable and diligent law enforcement and intelligence communities in the world.

But when a law enforcement officer exercises the power of the Sovereign over its citizens, she or
he has a responsibility to operate within the bounds of the Constitution and cannot raise the
specter of 9/11 as an absolute exception to that responsibility. On the record before the Court,
no reasonable officer could have believed they could arrest Plaintiffs without probable cause.
The right that was violated is clearly established . . .

The suit recently settled on undisclosed terms. According to the USA Today, the imams called the settlement a victory. The airport said it has not changed any policies as a result of the settlement, which it said it agreed to in order to save the expense of a trial.

“It is not an admission of guilt,” said Patrick Hogan, a spokesman for the Metropolitan Airports Commission, which runs Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.

In an editorial on Monday, the USA Today railed against the settlement:

While the settlement spared them the uncertainly and expense of a trial, it could have a chilling effect on the ability of airline crews and officials to protect passengers from a perceived threat. Pilots have to make quick, tough judgment calls: Take off with frightening suspicions unresolved or err on the side of caution. The only way to determine whether a real threat existed was to remove the clerics from the plane and investigate.

In this case, some of the initial suspicions proved unfounded. It turned out that the imams, who had been attending a religious conference in Minneapolis, didn’t have one-way tickets and hadn’t changed their seat assignments, as first thought. They denied making remarks about Saddam Hussein or U.S. involvement in Iraq. Even so, that was the information available to the captain when he had to make a “go/no go” decision. Airlines and airport authorities need flexibility to act in the interest of safety without worrying about being sued.

LBers, we think it’s a tough case. Any thoughts?

Photo: Getty Images