A federal judge has declined to dismiss the controversial lawsuit. “The imams have argued that they were removed because of religious and ethnic bias. The airline says they were ejected solely because of security concerns raised by passengers and crew members.” In August, the imams dropped the most widely criticized portion of the suit, which had named as defendants fellow passengers who had expressed fears for the flight’s security. (Dan Browning, “Flying imams score points in suit vs. US Airways”, Arizona Republic/Minneapolis Star Tribune, Nov. 21; Audrey Hudson, “Judge grants imams day in court”, Washington Times, Nov. 22). See Dec. 6, 2006, Mar. 15, 2007, etc.
More from Ann Althouse (Nov. 21): “Yes, let’s get to the factfinding. No need to throw this out on a motion to dismiss when the plaintiff’s version of the facts must be taken as true.”
4 Comments
The Justice Department has the choice of asking the judge to dismiss the case, even after a verdict returns. The reason is national security. The judge would have no choice, nor even hesitation, but to comply.
Althouse (like most law professors) skips an essential step in declaring, “let’s get to the factfinding.”
First, let’s get to discovery. Will the imams willingly submit to depositions? Or will they throw in the towel — as so many frivolous litigants do — when faced with the prospect of giving deposition testimony under oath to support their claims?
Even if they do eventually throw in the towel, a large chunk of money will go to fees. Again, we take money away from production due to our abused system. Judges are supposed to be gatekeepers – they tend to forget that these days.
Montgomery, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, said the facts they alleged “support the existence of an unconstitutional custom of arresting individuals without probable cause based on their race.”
So according to this learned judge, Muslim is a race.