NYPD Case Summary

To accurately assess the arguments and claims made in this case, it is necessary to contextualize this case and analyze these claims within current judicial jurisprudence as it stands. The case made by Hassan for their equal protection claim draws on the Hirabayashi v. U.S. (1943) decision that stated that religion and race are suspect classifications. Thus the NYPD’s actions and government surveillance program should be subjected to strict scrutiny, since the program is discriminating based on religion. But the NYPD draws from the Handschu Decree of 1985, which declares that NYPD’s actions are only accountable to the appropriate authorities that could differentiate unjust acts from just ones, such as the New York and New Jersey mayors. So

The Endorsement Test teststates that government may not, even unintentionally, “send the message” that a citizen is favored or disfavored based on their religious affiliation or adherence or non-adherence to religion. Following this logic, Hassan believes that the NYPD’s surveillance program is “sending the message” that any citizen practicing Islam is automatically disfavored in the eyes of the NYPD. However, the NYPD’s case against this Establishment Clause violation draws again from the Handschu Decree from 1985, the idea that the executive branches of government like the mayoral office is responsible for recognizing the government’s attempt to endorse religion or be hostile to it and as stated before, the actions of the NYPD, unless mentioned otherwise by the executive branches of government, are well-within their constitutional limits and thus, the actions of the NYPD are valid until called-out by the executive branches of government.

Lastly, the free exercise claims brought by both the NYPD and Hassan draw from the two important free exercise cases, Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993) and Sherbert v. Verner (1963). In Hassan’s case, the jurisprudence from the Church