Council on American-Islamic Relations New York v. City of New York
Council on American-Islamic Relations New York, Zarmeen Azam, and Shajnin Howlader v. City of New York, Assistant Chief at Patrol Ruel R. Stephenson, Sergeant Joseph M. Spalding, and New York Police Department Officers John Doe #1-10
- Naomi Buchwald
- 1:25-cv-01936
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
Council on American-Islamic Relations New York v. City of New York: Judge Buchwald denied defendants’ partial dismissal motion concerning declaratory relief and CAIR-NY’s standing.
The ruling allows CAIR-NY, Zarmeen Azam, and Shajnin Howlader’s challenged claims to remain in the case at this stage. It affects the City of New York, Ruel R. Stephenson, and Joseph M. Spalding by denying their partial dismissal motion.
What happened
In Council on American-Islamic Relations New York v. City of New York, CAIR-NY, Zarmeen Azam, and Shajnin Howlader sued over allegations that police officers forcibly removed Azam’s and Howlader’s hijabs during a 2024 protest. Defendants asked the court to dismiss the request for declaratory relief and CAIR-NY’s claim that it had been directly harmed as an organization.
The court rejected defendants’ argument that the complaint involved only past events that could not support declaratory relief. It also found that CAIR-NY had adequately alleged that the alleged police practice made its existing activities—such as counseling victims, defending religious liberty, and helping community members—more difficult, rather than merely causing it to spend money opposing a policy.
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald denied defendants’ motion. The ruling leaves the challenged claims in the case at this stage; it did not decide whether the alleged constitutional violations occurred.
The detailed version
- Council on American-Islamic Relations New York v. City of New York · No. 1:25-cv-01936
- Naomi Buchwald
- July 20, 2026
Background
The case concerns events at a political protest in Harlem on August 14, 2024. According to the Amended Complaint, New York Police Department officers grabbed and pulled Zarmeen Azam’s and Shajnin Howlader’s hijabs, tightening the fabric around their necks and partially or fully removing the coverings in public. Howlader was not arrested. Azam was arrested on disorderly-conduct charges that were later dismissed.
The plaintiffs allege that the officers violated Azam’s and Howlader’s constitutional rights and that the conduct reflected a broader New York Police Department practice of targeting Muslim women and forcibly removing their hijabs as a crowd-control method. CAIR-NY alleges that this practice impaired its established activities on behalf of New York’s Muslim community.
The Motion
The City of New York, Ruel R. Stephenson, and Joseph M. Spalding moved to partially dismiss the Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. They challenged two issues: the plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief and CAIR-NY’s organizational standing, meaning its ability to sue based on injury to the organization itself.
Declaratory Relief
Defendants argued that the complaint described only past acts involving Azam and Howlader and therefore could not support declaratory relief. The court rejected the argument at this stage. It explained that the complaint does not establish the entire factual record and that the rules require only a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief. The court also noted that Rule 54(c) allows a final judgment to grant relief supported by the record, even if that relief was not specifically demanded in the pleadings. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss the declaratory-relief claim.
CAIR-NY’s Organizational Standing
The court considered whether CAIR-NY adequately alleged a direct organizational injury, rather than standing based on representing its members. An organization must allege that the challenged conduct directly interfered with its core activities. Merely spending money to oppose a policy is not enough.
The court found CAIR-NY’s allegations sufficient. CAIR-NY alleged that the defendants’ conduct made several preexisting activities more difficult, including counseling victims of hate crimes and discrimination, defending religious liberty, empowering Muslims to exercise their First Amendment rights, and amplifying speech about Islam and Muslims. It also alleged increased reports of police misconduct, reduced trust in the New York Police Department, additional mediation with prosecutors and police, and expanded litigation efforts.
The court treated CAIR-NY’s new rights trainings, protest-rights workshops, community programming, and legal monitoring at protests as direct services made necessary by the alleged practice’s ongoing effects—not merely advocacy spending aimed at changing policy. The court therefore held that CAIR-NY adequately alleged organizational standing and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss CAIR-NY as a plaintiff.
Disposition
The court denied defendants’ motion. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 28. The opinion did not decide the ultimate truth of the allegations or whether the individual plaintiffs’ constitutional claims will succeed.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.