Citing the “possible repercussions” of the case, a Muslim woman from Detroit has dropped her lawsuit against a judge who insisted that she remove her facial veil in order to testify in small claims court, On Point has learned.

Ginnah Muhammad wears a “niqab,” a Ninja-style head scarf with a veil that covers all of her face except her eyes, whenever she leaves home. She had been aggressively pursuing her First Amendment case against the small claims judge, Paul J. Paruk, even after a federal court dismissed it in May 2008.

Paruk's refusal to let her wear the “niqab," Muhammad said in an appellate brief,

effectively forbids Muslim women from testifying in court. The consequence is the forfeiture of a fundamental right to access the courts. Predicating access to the courts on a Muslim woman’s removal o[f] her niqab is unconscionable.

But court records show Muhammad withdrew her appeal Oct. 14 –- two days before oral arguments were scheduled before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. In her dismissal papers, she said only that “Appellant no longer wishes to pursue her appeal for personal reasons including the possible repercussions of her case.”

Ginnah Muhammad

What those repercussions may be -– and why they would persuade Muhammad to give up the fight after 2-1/2 years of litigation –- is unclear. Any hostility toward Muslims is surely less intense now than it was when she filed suit.

Muhammad attorney Nabih H. Ayad did not respond to a request for comment and the state attorney for Paruk had “no idea” what prompted the dismissal. “I have no information other than what she said [in the papers],” Assistant Attorney General Margaret A. Nelson said.

The appeals court had denied Muhammad's request for a postponement of the oral arguments. Ayad filed the request Oct. 12, saying he had a scheduling conflict with a case in Detroit.

The dismissal unexpectedly concluded a case that began when Muhammad appeared in Paruk's Hamtramck, Mich., courtroom in October 2006 to testify in her small claims action against a rental car company. She told Paruk she could not remove her veil for religious reasons but he refused to let her take the stand, saying he needed to see her face to assess her credibility as a witness.

“I’m a practicing Muslim and this is my way of life and I believe in the Holy Koran and God is first in my life,” she insisted.

In March 2007, Muhammad sued Paruk for violating her First Amendment rights to exercise her religion and to access the courts. Her supporters included the ACLU, the American Jewish Congress, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee of Michigan, and the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

“Judges should not deny anyone access to justice because of his or her religion,” the ACLU of Michigan's legal director said.

But the case also inspired some ridicule, in part because an oft-printed photograph of Muhammad revealed garish, almost cartoonish eye makeup. To some, she was courting the very attention the “niqab” was meant to deflect.

U.S. District Judge John Feikens dismissed the case without reaching the merits, relying on procedural doctrines that protect state courts from undue federal intervention. Determining if Paruk has a policy of requiring witnesses to keep their faces visible “and, if he does, deciding whether it is valid, neutral and generally applicable would necessitate a detailed examination of how Paruk manages his courtroom as a state court judge,” he cautioned.

Muhammad argued in her appeal that courts “routinely accept testimony despite the trier of facts’ inability to visually assess the speaker[']s creditability [sic]” and “the notion that a witness[']s creditability can be determined by facial cues is an archaic pseudo-science that has no place in a modern court room.”

Reacting to Muhammad's case, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an order that gives trial judges discretion over whether women can wear full veils when they testify in court.

By Julie Edgar
10/19/09