Former FBI Operative Battles in Epic Legal Fight

Craig Monteilh's undercover work targeting mosques has led to a 15-year legal battle that's now before the Supreme Court

Published on Mar. 2, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

In 2006, the FBI launched an operation that targeted mosques for surveillance, according to the ACLU. At the center of this case is Craig Monteilh, a former FBI operative who went undercover, posing as a Muslim convert named Farouk al-Aziz, to secretly record audio and video at a mosque in Orange County, California. Monteilh later had a falling out with the FBI and provided details to the ACLU, leading to a lawsuit alleging violations of religious freedom and privacy rights. Now, 15 years later, the case is back before the Supreme Court as the government seeks to dismiss it to protect state secrets, while Monteilh hopes for a hearing to air his grievances against both sides.

Why it matters

This case highlights the ongoing tensions between national security efforts and civil liberties, as well as the complex dynamics that can arise when an undercover operative turns against the agency they worked for. The outcome could have significant implications for the limits of government surveillance and the rights of religious communities.

The details

In 2006, the FBI launched an operation known as 'Operation Flex' that allegedly targeted mosques for surveillance. Craig Monteilh, a former FBI operative, was deployed to infiltrate the Islamic Center of Irvine in Orange County, California, posing as a Muslim convert named Farouk al-Aziz. Monteilh secretly recorded audio and video at the mosque, but later had a falling out with the FBI and provided details to the ACLU, leading to a lawsuit alleging violations of religious freedom and privacy rights. The case has been a legal rollercoaster, with the Supreme Court set to discuss the latest twist in the 15-year-old battle.

  • In 2006, the FBI launched 'Operation Flex' targeting mosques for surveillance.
  • In 2009, Monteilh's story began to spill out, leading to media profiles and the ACLU lawsuit.
  • In 2021, part of the case reached the Supreme Court.
  • On March 1, 2026, the Supreme Court was set to discuss the latest twist in the case.
  • On March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court could announce its next move in the case.

The players

Craig Monteilh

A former FBI operative who went undercover, posing as a Muslim convert named Farouk al-Aziz, to secretly record audio and video at a mosque in Orange County, California. He later had a falling out with the FBI and provided details to the ACLU, leading to a lawsuit.

ACLU

The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a lawsuit alleging that 'Operation Flex' violated the religious freedom and privacy rights of mosque-goers through audio and video surveillance.

FBI

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, which launched 'Operation Flex' in 2006 to target mosques for surveillance.

U.S. Supreme Court

The highest court in the United States, which has been considering the case multiple times and could make a decision on the latest twist in the 15-year-old legal battle.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“The ACLU, they don't want me to say anything else that makes them look like we're in cahoots. The government, on the other hand, they're asserting state secrets.... Who's the guy in the middle right now with the puppet strings?”

— Craig Monteilh (Politico)

“The FBI has earned my vengeance.”

— Craig Monteilh (Politico)

What’s next

The Supreme Court is expected to announce its next move in the case as soon as Monday, March 2, 2026, which could include returning the case to a lower court for a hearing where Monteilh can publicly air his grievances against both the ACLU and the FBI.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing tension between national security efforts and civil liberties, as well as the complex dynamics that can arise when an undercover operative turns against the agency they worked for. The outcome could have significant implications for the limits of government surveillance and the rights of religious communities.