Shia Muslim Foundation Meets with Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee to Discuss FBI Coordination for Mosque Security

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 28, 2026

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Shia Muslim Foundation (SMF) today met with Congressman Jamie Raskin (MD-08), Ranking Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, on Capitol Hill to discuss securing federal support for mosque safety, specifically through coordination with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The meeting included a representative from UMAA, reflecting the broad coalition of American Muslim organizations united around the urgent need for community protection.

The delegation raised concerns about the safety of Shia Islamic centers across the United States and discussed avenues through which Rep. Raskin could assist in facilitating engagement between community institutions and the FBI's outreach and threat assessment programs. SMF also specifically requested Rep. Raskin's assistance in facilitating direct communication between law enforcement and all mosques in Maryland, both Sunni and Shia, underscoring that mosque security is a concern that transcends sectarian lines and requires a unified community response.

As Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Raskin serves as the senior Democrat on the committee with direct oversight authority over the Department of Justice and the FBI. As Ranking Member, he is entitled to sit as an ex officio member in all subcommittee meetings, giving him broad visibility and influence across the committee's jurisdiction. He was chosen by unanimous vote of the House Democratic Caucus to serve as Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee for the 119th Congress. The committee is the primary congressional body responsible for oversight of federal law enforcement, civil liberties, and constitutional rights.

"Shia mosques across America face real and documented security threats," said Rahat Husain, Executive Director of SMF. "We are grateful to Congressman Raskin for making time to meet with us and for his commitment to ensuring that all faith communities receive the federal attention and protection they deserve. His leadership on the Judiciary Committee makes him uniquely positioned to help bridge our community with the resources of the FBI."

SMF and UMAA expressed their commitment to continued engagement with federal officials on community safety, civil rights, and the protection of Muslim houses of worship nationwide.

About the Shia Muslim Foundation

The Shia Muslim Foundation (SMF) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to advocacy, education, and community empowerment on behalf of Shia Muslims in the United States. SMF engages with elected officials, federal agencies, and interfaith partners to advance the safety, rights, and civic participation of the American Muslim community.

The Supreme Court Just Heard Arguments on Birthright Citizenship. Here Is What the 14th Amendment Actually Says.

For many Muslim immigrant families, the Supreme Court fight over birthright citizenship is not abstract law. It is about whether a child born in the United States starts life with clear legal status, or with uncertainty built in from day one. That is why the Court's April 1 oral arguments matter so much. The case could reshape how the government treats the children of undocumented immigrants and of parents on temporary visas, including student, work, and visitor visas.

The immediate legal fight comes from President Donald Trump's January 2025 executive order, which seeks to deny automatic citizenship to some children born in the United States if their parents are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. During oral argument on April 1, several justices, including conservative members of the Court, signaled skepticism about the administration's position. Reuters reported that the justices appeared doubtful about the legality of the order, and SCOTUSblog's oral argument review described broad questioning across the bench.

The starting point is the Constitution itself. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” That sentence does a lot of work. It answers the basic question of who becomes a citizen at birth. It does not say that a child’s citizenship depends on the parents’ immigration category. It focuses first on birth in the United States and on being subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

That language was added after the Civil War, in part to overturn Dred Scott and make national citizenship clear and secure. Over time, courts treated the citizenship clause as a broad rule, not a narrow political favor. The most important precedent is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 Supreme Court case holding that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a U.S. citizen by birth. That case has long stood for the rule that birth on U.S. soil generally means citizenship, with only limited exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats.

The administration's argument is that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is narrower than the traditional reading. In broad terms, the government argues that some children born in the United States should not qualify if their parents lack the right kind of lasting legal tie to the country. Critics say that reading collides with the text, with the history of the amendment, and with more than a century of settled law. They also say an executive order cannot override a constitutional guarantee that courts and governments have long recognized.

This is where the case has immediate community relevance. Muslim families in the United States include citizens, green card holders, visa holders, refugees, asylum seekers, and undocumented people. A rule that narrows birthright citizenship would not land on some abstract group. It would hit actual families in actual maternity wards, schools, and neighborhoods. It would also raise basic questions about passports, Social Security numbers, health coverage, school enrollment, and protection from future removal.

The argument in favor of the order is mostly framed around immigration control. Supporters say birthright citizenship creates incentives for illegal immigration and has been read too broadly for too long. The argument against the order is more direct: the Constitution already answered this question, and the government cannot rewrite that answer by executive action. On that point, the questioning at oral argument mattered. Justices pressed the administration on text, history, and precedent, especially the force of Wong Kim Ark.

A final decision is expected before the Supreme Court’s term ends, likely by late June. When that ruling comes down, the headline will matter, but so will the reasoning. If the Court rejects the order, it will likely reaffirm what the citizenship clause means and why precedent still controls. If it narrows the rule, the consequences would reach far beyond one administration. For SMFNews readers, the real point is simple. Birthright citizenship is not a slogan. It is a constitutional rule with direct consequences for immigrant Muslim families, and the 14th Amendment’s text is still the place where the argument begins.

Sources

• National Archives: 14th Amendment text

• SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court appears likely to side against Trump on birthright citizenship

• Reuters: Supreme Court justices skeptical of Trump birthright citizenship order

• White House: Executive Order on birthright citizenship (January 20, 2025)

• National Archives: Wong Kim Ark case records

• Supreme Court: Trump v. Barbara oral argument audio and transcript

UK Parliament Hosts Baqi Commemoration, Renewing Calls for Access and Preservation

A high-level event at the House of Lords this week marked the 100-year anniversary of the destruction of the Baqi Cemetery, bringing the issue into a formal political setting and signaling a shift toward coordinated advocacy in the United Kingdom. The program, organized by the Al Baqee Organization in partnership with the Al Khoei Foundation, drew faith leaders, policymakers, and community representatives for a focused discussion on access, preservation, and accountability.

The event comes amid renewed global attention on religious heritage sites and their protection, with organizers positioning Baqi as part of a broader conversation on cultural and religious rights. Hosting the discussion inside Parliament moved the issue into a policy environment where engagement with decision-makers can take place directly.

Mohammed Al-Hilli addressed the audience and framed the issue in direct terms. Sheikh Mohammed Al-Hilli stated that “the need for women to be allowed entry into Baqi cannot be ignored” and emphasized that “the opportunity today to apply political pressure and lobby cannot be taken lightly.” His remarks tied the destruction of the cemetery to present-day restrictions, describing the issue as ongoing and unresolved.

The Al Baqee Organization has taken a structured approach focused on policy engagement alongside awareness efforts. Its work includes organizing international events, building interfaith partnerships, and engaging lawmakers. This event reflects that strategy and signals a move toward sustained advocacy within formal political channels.

The Baqi Cemetery in Medina, referred to by the same name as the organization, holds deep significance in Islamic history. It is the burial site of members of the family of the Prophet Muhammad and many early companions. In 1925, the cemetery was demolished during the formation of the Saudi state. Structures marking graves were removed, leaving the site largely unmarked. Efforts to rebuild or preserve the cemetery have not progressed, and access restrictions, including limitations affecting women, remain a point of concern.

Recent coverage and community reporting around the anniversary point to growing international coordination on the issue, particularly in Western countries where advocacy can intersect with political systems. The House of Lords event reflects that shift. It places Baqi within a broader discussion of religious rights and heritage preservation while signaling a continued push for political engagement.