MUSLIM PLAINTIFFS PLACED ON THE NO-FLY LIST MAY SEEK MONETARY DAMAGES UNDER RFRA
January 21, 2021
On December 10, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a group of Muslim plaintiffs could seek monetary damages under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) from FBI agents who allegedly placed them on the no-fly list after the plaintiffs refused to become informants. Tanzin et al. v. Tanvir et al., No. 19-71 (Sup. Ct. October term 2020).
The RFRA allows plaintiffs to seek “appropriate relief” against officials in their personal capacity for substantial burdens on the plaintiffs’ religious exercise. The Court rejected the government’s position that “appropriate relief” did not include monetary damages. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the Court’s majority opinion, stating that had Congress wished to limit the remedy, it would have done so in the language of the statute. Justice Thomas also rejected the government’s concerns that allowing plaintiffs to seek payouts would raise separation-of-powers concerns. He said that there was no constitutional reason for the Supreme Court to shield government employees from personal liabilities. Congress was free to consider these public policy concerns when they wrote and passed the RFRA.
The Supreme Court only ruled on the interpretation of “appropriate relief” in the RFRA; it did not express an opinion on the merits of the case.
If you have any questions, please contact Evelyn Sahr (esahr@eckertseamans.com or 202-659-6622); Drew Derco (dderco@eckertseamans.com or 202-659-6665), or Andy Orr (aorr@eckertsemans.com or 202-659-6625).
Share This Post
Authors
