Six Valley imams who were ejected from an U.S. Airways flight, then detained and questioned for hours, have received permission from a federal judge to seek a jury’s ruling on possible violations of their constitutional rights.

The month-old court ruling from U.S. District Court in Minnesota hasn’t attracted nearly as much attention as when the imams and the Council on American-Islamic Relations filed the lawsuit claiming religious discrimination. In November 2006, the imams were removed from a flight before it left for Phoenix after they attended a clerical conference in Minneapolis. The imams were accused of “suspicious behavior” for praying to Allah in the terminal before the flight, for sitting in seats spread throughout the plane, for criticizing the U.S. involvement in Iraq, and for requesting seat belt extenders.

The lawsuit prompted national consternation, in part, because it sought to include other passengers who had reported their suspicions to the flight attendants and the pilot. That was so controversial that Congress passed a law granting immunity to people who report suspicious activity on federally regulated transportation.

U.S. District Judge Ann D. Montgomery said in her ruling that the various circumstances added up to reasonable suspicious about the imams at first glance, but those suspicions should have disappeared after just a few brief questions from law enforcement. The imams never have been considered dangerous by the federal government. They have a right to pray, even in Arabic, and they also can criticize government policies, she said. Most of the imams sat in seats assigned by U.S. Airways (one imam switched seats with a fellow passenger to move closer to a colleague who is completely blind). And while the seat belt extenders possibly could be used as weapons, Montgomery said they are no more dangerous than clothing belts that passengers are routinely allowed to wear on planes (and one of those seat belt extenders was requested by the blind imam, anyway).

For these reasons and technical legal issues, Montgomery dropped U.S. Airways from the lawsuit but will allow the case to go trial against the federal law enforcement agents involved.

“Plaintiffs have presented evidence that could lead a reasonable jury to conclude that they were arrested at least partly on the basis of their race, religion, or national origin,” Montegomery wrote.

The Tribune Editorial Board noted in 2006 that the treatment of the imams was deeply troubling in a nation where people are supposed to be able to worship freely and to speak their minds. I’m still bothered by U.S. Airways’ refusal to accept the imams as passengers after they were cleared of any wrongdoing. But I have to agree with Montgomery that the most egregious conduct was by federal law enforcement, which didn’t release the imams for hours after it should have been clear they weren’t a danger to anyone.