The “flying imams” civil-rights case has survived an early test as a Minneapolis judge ruled that the arrests of six Muslim scholars after they boarded a U.S. Airways flight may not meet the probable cause standard.

“Probable cause is determined based on the objective facts available to the officers at the time of the arrest,” U.S. District Judge Ann D. Montgomery said, and it is “dubious” that those facts stated by airport police “would lead a reasonable person to conclude that Plaintiffs were about to interfere with the crew of Flight 300.”

Montgomery was referring to the official police report of the Nov. 20, 2006 arrests of the scholarly six on a plane awaiting departure from the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport. The imams, one of whom is blind and walks with a cane, were all released without being charged after FBI agents interviewed them.

The report was technically “outside the pleadings” for purposes of motions to dismiss. But Montgomery concluded in her opinion that even if the report was considered as evidence, “Plaintiffs have adequately stated a claim that MAC [Metropolitan Airport Commission] violated their Fourth Amendment rights.”

According to the report, police acted in part on information from a passenger that “He witnessed six Middle Eastern males in the gate area praying and chanting in an Arabic dialect” and, while eavesdropping on their conversation, “overheard them mention Sad[d]am and heard them curse about the U.S. involvement” in Iraq.

The plaintiffs also apparently raised suspicions by requesting seatbelt extensions and taking seats spread around the aircraft. They alleged in a complaint filed in March that their arrests were motivated by post-9/11 anti-Muslim hysteria.

Montgomery also upheld a claim against U.S. Airways for intentional infliction of emotional distress, which requires a showing of “extreme and outrageous” conduct.

The airline had cited Alasady v. Northwest Airlines Corp., an unpublished decision in which another Minnesota judge dismissed the emotional distress claim of three Muslims who were not allowed to board a flight. “The claims alleged in the Amended Complaint are more severe than the refusal to board a flight as in Alasady,” Montgomery explained.

The judge noticeably avoided any discussion of the hot-button issues of homeland security and religious rights surrounding the case. “This has always been a straightforward civil rights case,” an attorney for the imams told the Minneapolis Tribune. “You had six individuals ... doing absolutely nothing wrong.”

The imams previously dropped their claims against the passenger who alerted the flight crew and then spoke to police.