Government Revoked Muslim Nuclear Physicist's Security Clearance To Retaliate For Criticism Of U.S. Policy, Says ACLU
Lawsuit Charges Government Is Hiding Behind "National Security" Claim
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
PITTSBURGH - The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit today on behalf of Dr. Moniem El-Ganayni, a nuclear physicist and naturalized American citizen whose security clearance was improperly revoked earlier this year by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). In an unprecedented move, the government – counter to its own policy – has denied El-Ganayni the chance to contest the revocation and refused to divulge the reasons behind it, citing "national security."
In its lawsuit, the ACLU charges that the DOE took away El-Ganayni's clearance to retaliate against him for publicly criticizing U.S. foreign policy and the FBI. The agency sought to cover up its retaliation against El-Ganayni, a foreign-born Muslim, for his constitutionally protected speech by invoking "national security." As a result of the revocation, El-Ganayni was fired from his job.
"After eighteen years of dedicated service working to improve America's national-defense capabilities, the U.S. government thanked Moniem El-Ganayni with a pink slip instead of a blue ribbon," said Witold Walczak, ACLU of Pennsylvania's Legal Director and one of El-Ganayni's lawyers. "The Energy Department knows it cannot admit that it revoked Mr. El-Ganayni's clearance because he has been an outspoken critic of the U.S. government's treatment of Muslims here and abroad, so it is hiding behind ‘national security' to avoid having to explain itself."
During seven hours of interviews, representatives from the DOE and the FBI never questioned El-Ganayni about the possibility of security breaches or the mishandling of classified information. Rather, they questioned him about his religious beliefs, his work as an imam in the Pennsylvania prison system, his political views about the U.S. war in Iraq, and speeches he'd made in local mosques criticizing the FBI's treatment of Muslims in Pittsburgh.
El-Ganayni gave a speech in July 2006 at a Pittsburgh mosque quoting from best-selling books that sharply criticized the U.S. government's foreign policy toward Muslim countries, especially Iraq. He also criticized the FBI's handling of a raid in June 2006 on another Pittsburgh mosque, where the FBI needlessly interrupted high-noon prayers and frisked congregants on the sidewalks in front of Pittsburgh's press corps in order to execute an arrest warrant for a man they had already arrested several hours earlier.
Because of the loss of his security clearance, El-Ganayni was fired from his job with Bettis Laboratory, where he worked for eighteen years. During his time at the laboratory, he never received a negative performance evaluation, nor was he ever accused of misconduct. He regularly passed routine clearance re-certification.
"To realize after 28 years in the United States that I cannot share in this country's opportunities and freedoms is devastating to me," said El-Ganayni. "If this can happen to an innocent U.S. citizen who had been deemed worthy of a security clearance for 18 years, it could happen to anyone."
Born in Egypt, El-Ganayni moved to the United States in 1980. He settled in Pittsburgh, where he earned a doctorate in physics at the University of Pittsburgh and married an American woman. El-Ganayni became a U.S. citizen in 1988. In 1990, he was hired as a physicist by Bettis Laboratory, a Pittsburgh-area facility operated under contract with the DOE. El-Ganayni has been very active in the Pittsburgh Muslim community and helped to establish one of the region's first Islamic mosques in the 1980s.
"The failure to provide Dr. El-Ganayni with even the slightest explanation for DOE's actions is unprecedented and places him in the Kafkaesque position of not even knowing the charges against him. This is inconsistent with basic constitutional protections afforded to all citizens," said Keith E. Whitson, Partner at Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP, the law firm assisting the ACLU with this lawsuit.
El-Ganayni is represented by Walczak and Whitson, George McGrann and Paul Titus from the law firm Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP. The case, El-Ganayni v. United States Department of Energy et al, was filed today in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh. A copy of the complaint can be found at: www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/secruityclearancerevokedin.htm
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.