The family of civil rights icon Malcolm X has taken a bold and historic step, filing a $100 million lawsuit against various U.S. government agencies, including the FBI, CIA, and the New York Police Department (NYPD), claiming these entities played significant roles leading up to and following the assassination of the revered leader. Malcolm, who was born Malcolm Little, was shot dead at the young age of 39 on February 21, 1965, during a speech at the Audubon Ballroom in New York City.
At a press conference held on November 15, 2024, Malcolm X's daughters, Ilyasah and Qubilah Shabazz, were joined by their legal representative Ben Crump and other prominent civil rights attorneys. "We believe they all conspired to assassinate Malcolm X," Crump stated, emphasizing the deeply entrenched issues of law enforcement's alleged negligence surrounding their father's death, which has reverberated through decades of history. He added, "We seek justice for the assassination of our father and want the truth documented historically."">
The lawsuit spans 85 pages and outlines nine primary allegations against the federal and state agencies. The Shabazz family claims these entities were aware of credible threats against Malcolm X's life yet failed to provide adequate protection. The suit alleges there was a "corrupt, unlawful, and unconstitutional" relationship between law enforcement and those who orchestrated his assassination, which if true, paints a disturbing picture of systemic betrayal.
One key assertion made by the family centers around the timing of the assassination. Just days before Malcolm X's death, several members of his security detail were arrested under dubious circumstances. Their absence left him vulnerable during the attack, which many now speculate may have been orchestrated or at least facilitated by these agencies' actions or lack thereof.
Malcolm X was gunned down at the Audubon Ballroom as he was preparing to deliver remarks. At the time, his pregnant wife, Betty Shabazz, and four of their daughters were present, making the tragedy all the more poignant for the family.
The lawsuit claims federal agencies acted with bad faith and recklessness, effectively allowing for the assassination to occur without intervention. "Malcolm X was deprived of his federal constitutional rights, robbed of his life and freedom, and sustained severe physical, emotional, and monetary damages," reads the complaint. The family's legal team argues the decision to remove protection and allow the assassination to take place reflects the systemic failure of the agencies involved.
Ben Crump’s legal team is pushing for accountability and justice, working to connect the dots of incriminated conduct allegedly shaped by the FBI's historical surveillance practices—particularly their Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO)—which categorized Black activists, including Malcolm X, as domestic threats. Under the leadership of J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI's tactics created high levels of scrutiny and often led to efforts aimed at discrediting and undermining the credibility of civil rights leaders.
Since the 2021 exoneration of two of the three men convicted of Malcolm X's murder, the renewed interest and scrutiny surrounding the case have pushed the Shabazz family to seek answers. The legal team cites previously concealed evidence indicating the complicity of law enforcement during and after the assassination. The evidence suggests not only foreknowledge of the attack but also active participation or deliberate negligence on the part of various agencies.
Notably, the complaint indicates there were undercover agents present at the ballroom during the shooting who failed to intervene, raising questions about what role they played during the event. The suggestion is not merely fallout from years of speculation but rather claims rooted in the notion of systemic collusion.
Adding to the complexity of this narrative, revelations have emerged from letters and documents provided by former law enforcement officials, asserting the NYPD's collusion with the FBI to keep Malcolm X's protection undermined. Raymond Wood, one such officer, alleged he was ordered to draft members of Malcolm’s security team to commit crimes to facilitate their arrests and disband protection during the the fateful time.
This latest legal effort by the Shabazz family follows years of pain and unanswered questions. The initial convictions of three men for his murder were seen as insufficient justice. Two of those men were exonerated three years ago, indicating failures within the police and judicial systems. The family's history of seeking justice now aligns with the current legal climate, which has started to peel back decades of silence on Malcolm X's assassination, trying to understand the exact circumstances surrounding not only his brutal murder but also the systemic neglect and alleged conspiracies of the U.S. government agencies.
The ramifications of this trial could be significant for the legacy of both Malcolm X and the agencies named. There is potential for this case to challenge long-held narratives about the security and preservation of civil rights leaders and activists throughout history. Should the Shabazz family succeed, it may pave the way for not only financial reparations but also fundamental shifts concerning how similar cases are handled moving forward.
With this lawsuit, the Shabazz family aims to set the record straight on their father’s legacy and, as Ilyasah Shabazz remarked, "We are not just making history; we’re making paths for justice." The family hopes to find peace and answers to questions growing more urgent over time as we approach the 60th anniversary of Malcolm X’s tragic death.
This multifaceted approach to seeking justice intertwines with broader social justice movements today, reflecting on the past injustices dealt to Black leaders and activists. It gives the Shabazz family's pursuit for accountability greater weight, highlighting the need to confront historical amnesia surrounding civil rights struggles and their figures.
How this lawsuit will proceed remains to be seen, but with powerful figures behind it and new evidence being presented, there seems to be more than just old grievances at stake here. Rather, it may be the foundation for transformative change within the very system attributed to their father’s untimely death.
