Emad v. Wong, et al.

Mohamed Emad is a Palestinian immigrant from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Targeted and falsely labeled a terrorist by the Trump Administration, Mr. Emad was detained in March 2018. Mr. Emad came to the United States in 1994 and has not left the country in 25 years. Prior to his detention by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Mr. Emad was involved with the local religious community and close to his community.

Mr. Emad was working at a small restaurant where the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) planted an informant that would later be part of an entrapment case involving one of Mr. Emad’s co-workers. Mr. Emad’s personal information was compromised although he was not involved in the FBI operation.

While detained Dodge County Detention Facility, Mr. Emad was denied access to necessary mental health care as well as the ability to freely exercise his religion. He was at risk of being detained indefinitely because of the false terrorist label.

The MacArthur Justice Center filed a lawsuit against ICE, the FBI, Dodge County, and the medical care provider of Dodge County Detention Facility on behalf of Mohamed Emad in April 2019. Shortly after filing the lawsuit, ICE released Mr. Emad from detention on May 13, 2019. Mr. Emad then settled his claims against the medical care provider of the detention facility. His claims against Dodge County for prohibiting him from freely exercising his religion and discriminating against him on the basis of his religion while he was detained are still ongoing.

UPDATE

The district court granted the jail’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, and the MacArthur Justice Center continued to represent Mr. Emad to fight this erroneous decision. MJC continued litigating Mr. Emad’s First and Fourteenth Amendment religious liberty and equal protection claims on appeal in the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit agreed that qualified immunity was improper on the record below and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The Seventh Circuit agreed that the record showed Mr. Emad’s religious liberties were violated, and it went so far as to say “[W]e have no trouble concluding that Emad’s claims fall in the heartland of these constitutional protections such that qualified immunity cannot be awarded in the circumstances before us here.” Ultimately, the case was settled post remand.