Civil Rights Groups Ask Administration to Explain NSA Surveillance of American Muslims
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
WASHINGTON – In response to a report in The Intercept about NSA spying on five prominent American Muslims, a coalition of 45 civil rights, human rights, privacy rights, and faith-based organizations sent a letter to President Obama asking for “a full public accounting of these practices.”
The coalition, organized by the American Civil Liberties Union, also repeated its call for the Justice Department to strengthen its official Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies.
“The DOJ Guidance was an important step forward in clarifying the Justice Department’s position against racial profiling in law enforcement when it was crafted in 2003,” the letter said. “However, it must be amended to ban profiling on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or national origin, and loopholes in the DOJ Guidance that permit all forms of racial profiling in the national security and border contexts must be closed.”
The full letter is below and at:
aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/coalition_letter_re_intercept_nsa_revelations_0.pdf
July 9, 2014
President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500
Re: Secret Surveillance of American Muslim Community Leaders
Dear Mr. President,
The undersigned civil rights, human rights, privacy rights and faith-based organizations write to express our concerns following a report published by First Look Media indicating that the FBI and NSA targeted American Muslim community leaders for secret surveillance. We call on your Administration to provide a full public accounting of these practices and to strengthen protections against the infringement of civil liberties and human rights. We also request a meeting with you, Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI director James Comey to discuss these matters.
While we do not know all of the facts of the individual reported cases, we believe the government has an obligation to explain the basis for its actions. Moreover, we cannot presume that the government acted without prejudice or bias. Too often, both in the past and in the present, we have observed the government engaging in patterns of discriminatory and abusive surveillance.
In an earlier era, during the 1960s and 1970s, civil rights leaders, activists and members of minority communities were subjected to unlawful and abusive government surveillance based not on what they had done, but what they believed and who they were. Despite reform efforts, abusive practices continue today. Federal, state, and local law enforcement are targeting entire communities—particularly American Muslims—for secret surveillance based on their race, religion, ethnicity or national origin.
The First Look report is troubling because it arises in this broader context of abuse. Documents obtained through an American Civil Liberties Union Freedom of Information Act request show that the FBI has been mapping a broad spectrum of communities, including American Muslim communities, the African American community and Latino American communities, without any basis for individualized suspicion. Under the guise of community outreach, the FBI targeted mosques and Muslim community organizations for intelligence gathering. It has pressured law-abiding American Muslims to become informants against their own communities, often in coercive circumstances. It has also stigmatized innocent Muslims by placing them on the No Fly List and other watch lists. In short, the government’s domestic counterterrorism policies treat entire minority communities as suspect, and American Muslims have borne the brunt of government suspicion, stigma and abuse.
These practices hurt not only American Muslims, but all communities that expect law enforcement to serve and protect America’s diverse population equally, without discrimination. They strike the bedrock of democracy: that no one should grow up fearful of law enforcement, scared to exercise the rights to freedom of speech, association and worship.
Federal agencies must fulfill their important law enforcement and security missions consistent with the Constitution and this nation’s laws, with effective checks and balances and public oversight. To that end, we urge you, as many of the undersigned organizations have previously and repeatedly urged your Administration, to strengthen the Department of Justice’s Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies (“DOJ Guidance”). The DOJ Guidance was an important step forward in clarifying the Justice Department’s position against racial profiling in law enforcement when it was crafted in 2003. However, it must be amended to ban profiling on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or national origin, and loopholes in the DOJ Guidance that permit all forms of racial profiling in the national security and border contexts must be closed.
The need for these amendments is critical given the proliferation of new forms of technology used by law enforcement to conduct surveillance of all Americans—and particularly minority communities and their members. While we are still learning about the cases reported by First Look and cannot draw firm conclusions about what effect a revised DOJ Guidance would have had in these instances, we believe that now more than ever, your Administration needs to repudiate the notion that racial profiling is ever acceptable.
To be sure, we do not know the scale of surveillance conducted pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on American Muslim community leaders and whether there is a pattern of discriminatory abuse in this particular context. Yet that is in large part because of government secrecy. Unnecessary government secrecy surrounding the government’s surveillance activities invites abuse and feeds the sense that surveillance is being use for illegitimate ends. We cannot trust government assurances of fairness and legality when surveillance is being conducted without sufficient public oversight. As a first step, we urge you to provide the public with the information necessary to meaningfully assess the First Look report.
As organizations that support your commitment to equal protection, we look forward to working with your Administration to strengthen civil liberties and human rights safeguards for all. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Access
American Civil Liberties Union
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
Amnesty International
Arab American Institute
Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus
Brennan Center for Justice
Center for Community Change
Center for Constitutional Rights
Center for Deomcracy and Technology
Council on American-Islamic Relations
Defending Dissent Foundation
Free Press
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
Human Rights Campaign
Human Rights Watch
Interfaith Alliance
Islamic Society of North America
Lambda Legal
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
Muslim Advocates
Muslim Legal Fund of America
Muslim Public Affairs Council
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense Fund
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Center for Transgender Equality
National Coalition on Black Civic Participation
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
National Immigration Law Center
National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild
National Lawyers Guild
National Network for Arab American Communities
National Religious Campaign Against Torture
National Security Network
National Urban League
New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute
New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good
Partnership for Civil Justice Fund
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund
The Sikh Coalition
South Asian Americans Leading Together
Transgender Law Center
T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights
United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries
Stay informed
Sign up to be the first to hear about how to take action.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy statement.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy statement.
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
- Press ReleaseApr 2025
Privacy & Technology
+2 Issues
Human Rights First Joins Aclu And Nyclu In Amicus Brief To Protect First Amendment Rights And Interests Of Ngos Advocating For U.s. Sanctions. Explore Press Release.Human Rights First Joins ACLU and NYCLU in Amicus Brief to Protect First Amendment Rights and Interests of NGOs Advocating for U.S. Sanctions
Today, Human Rights First, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in support of Democracy for the Arab World Now’s (DAWN) efforts to block an individual sanctioned for violence in the Israeli occupied West Bank from accessing information about DAWN’s advocacy for sanctions against him. The brief argues that various protections, including the First Amendment and reporter’s privilege, bar the court from granting the discovery requested in this case. The brief also emphasizes how such discovery requests, if granted, would put civil society groups at serious risk of irreparable harm and chill their vital advocacy work on human rights and corruption issues. In August 2024, Isaac Levi Pilant was sanctioned by the U.S. government under the West Bank sanctions program, for attacking and forcefully expelling Palestinians from a West Bank settlement. At the time, human rights groups, media outlets, and witnesses had documented Pilant’s alleged role in violent attacks against Palestinians, and DAWN had publicly recommended that the U.S. government impose sanctions on him and others for such violence. The sanctions against Pilant were lifted in January 2025, after President Trump effectively terminated the West Bank sanctions program. Pilant then filed an application against DAWN and its executive director, Sarah Leah Whitson, pursuant to a U.S. law that provides a mechanism for foreign litigants to obtain discovery from people and entities in the United States.The application seeks a court order for information related to DAWN’s investigation of Pilant and its sanctions advocacy efforts. Pilant says he seeks the information for use in a possible future defamation case in Israel against an Israeli human rights organization. The brief explains how the U.S. government has established frameworks and processes to encourage nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to share sensitive information that can assist it in more effectively implementing various human rights and corruption sanctions and visa restriction programs. Undermining the protections for NGOs to securely and confidentially share this information would not only impact the ability of the U.S. government to use such tools to hold human rights abusers and corrupt actors accountable, but it would also put NGOs, victims of abuse, and others in civil society in jeopardy by opening them up to retaliation and harassment from people they accuse of human rights violations. “Human rights and corruption sanctions are impactful tools of accountability because they threaten the reputations and financial interests of abusers. Forcing NGOs to share information about their sanctions advocacy would put them at grave risk of violence and retaliation from repressive governments and powerful private individuals,” said Amanda Strayer, Senior Counsel for Accountability at Human Rights First. “U.S. courts should not become a forum for sanctioned actors to harass and seek retribution against civil society groups that advocate for measures to hold them accountable.” The brief also argues that Pilant’s broad discovery request implicates information protected under the First Amendment and the reporter’s privilege, which provide grounds to reject his request under the Section 1782 statute. Supreme Court precedent requires the Court to give weight to the serious First Amendment and policy considerations before granting such a request. In this case, these considerations should result in the Court denying Pilant’s discovery request. “It is the nature of human rights reporting that it often draws the ire of accused human rights violators. But the law is clear that such individuals cannot coopt U.S. courts in an attempt to harass and endanger human rights organizations and the victims of abuses whose stories they safeguard. That’s why this is an easy case, and we hope the court has no trouble concluding that the First Amendment protects DAWN’s rights to free speech and association, and bars enforcement of the meritless request for intrusive discovery,” said Nathan Freed Wessler, Deputy Director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “NGOs can play a critical role in providing accountability for human rights abuses, and the Constitution protects them from being forced to reveal certain confidential aspects of that work,” said Bobby Hodgson, assistant legal director at the New York Civil Liberties Union. “DAWN is being targeted by a foreign litigant implicated in serious human rights violations in an effort to weaponize our court system to silence critics. We urge the court to reject these requests and recognize that the discovery process does not create an end run around the First Amendment.” - News & CommentaryApr 2025
National Security
Trump's Expanded Domestic Military Use Should Worry Us All. Explore News & Commentary.Trump's Expanded Domestic Military Use Should Worry Us All
President Donald Trump's use of the military domestically is dangerous and deeply misguided. - Press ReleaseApr 2025
National Security
Human Rights
Human Rights Advocates Sue Trump Administration Over Sanctions Targeting Icc. Explore Press Release.Human Rights Advocates Sue Trump Administration Over Sanctions Targeting ICC
WASHINGTON — Two U.S. human rights advocates are challenging the Trump administration’s executive order imposing sanctions on the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). As the lawsuit explains, these sanctions violate the First Amendment by prohibiting the advocates, and other Americans like them, from speaking with the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor, including by providing legal advice, expert analysis, and evidence. “The International Criminal Court is where victims of grave human rights violations turn when national legal systems fail to provide justice,” said Charlie Hogle, staff attorney with ACLU’s National Security Project. “Blocking our clients and others like them from doing their human rights work is unconstitutional.” Under the executive order, people in the U.S. who’ve devoted their lives to seeking justice for the victims of atrocities—like the genocide of Myanmar’s Rohingya people, or gender-based violence committed against Afghan women under the Taliban—could face stiff penalties simply for exercising their constitutional right to engage and advocate with ICC investigators and prosecutors. “Because of this order, I’ve been forced to stop helping the ICC investigate horrific crimes committed against the people of Myanmar, including mass murder, torture, and human trafficking,” said Matthew Smith, co-founder and CEO of Fortify Rights. “This Executive Order doesn’t just disrupt our work—it actively undermines international justice efforts and obstructs the path to accountability for communities facing unthinkable horrors.” Matthew Smith and Akila Radhakrishnan are suing because the executive order forced them to stop working with the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor and indefinitely paused their efforts to hold leading rights violators accountable for horrific crimes. As the lawsuit explains, the First Amendment does not allow the government to impose such sweeping limits on what Americans can say, and to whom they can say it. “Victims of the Taliban’s oppression can’t rely on their own courts for justice. That’s why they turn to the ICC, and why it's so important for me to be able to partner with them in their fight for justice and accountability,” said Akila Radhakrishnan, an international human rights lawyer. “I’m bringing this suit to prevent my own government from punishing me for trying to hold the Taliban accountable for its systematic violence against women and girls from Afghanistan.” The international community, including the United States, established the ICC in 1998 to help maintain international peace and security. The ICC investigates and prosecutes crimes of the severest magnitude—including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes—when domestic courts are unwilling or unable to do so. Today, 125 countries have joined the ICC’s founding treaty, known as the “Rome Statute.” As the lawsuit explains, although the United States has not ratified the Rome Statute, it has supported the ICC’s critical work on a wide range of matters. This lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maine by the ACLU and ACLU of Maine on behalf of Matthew Smith and Akila Radhakrishnan. In 2020, when President Trump imposed similar sanctions, the ACLU sued on behalf of human rights experts who were forced to stop working with the ICC. Our clients withdrew their lawsuit when President Joe Biden rescinded the sanctions, but a federal court in a separate suit agreed the sanctions likely violated the First Amendment. - MaineApr 2025
National Security
Free Speech
Smith V. Trump. Explore Case.Smith v. Trump
On April 11, 2025, the ACLU and ACLU of Maine filed a lawsuit on behalf of two human rights advocates who, because of an executive order signed by President Trump, have been forced to stop humanitarian work with the International Criminal Court.