On December 10, 2020, in a unanimous opinion, the Supreme
Court ruled that Muslim men put on the no-fly list in retaliation for their
refusal to act as informants for the FBI could sue FBI agents for monetary
damages under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The RFRA permits litigants to obtain monetary damages against federal officials in their individual capacity for violating the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.
The case, Tanzin v. Tanvir (U.S., Dec. 10, 2020, No. 19-71) 2020 WL 7250100, centered around three Muslim men who claimed that FBI agents placed them on the no-fly list because they refused to act as informants against their religious communities. The individuals were seeking both an injunction and monetary damages for lost income and wasted airline tickets. The defendants claimed that monetary damages were not permitted by RFRA.
Writing for the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas noted that the plain language of RFRA permits individuals to sue government officials in their individual capacities. Moreover, the Court found that monetary damages were a form of “appropriate relief” permitted by the statute. The Court noted that money damages have long been authorized in American law, dating back to the beginning of the republic. Specifically, the Court pointed to the Civil Rights Act of 1983, which permits monetary recovery against government officials who violate individuals’ civil rights. RFRA, enacted in 1993, is in that tradition and uses the same terminology. The Court concluded by acknowledging that although there may be valid policy reasons to shield government officials from liability, Congress is the one who must create such policies.
Although the recent ruling opens government officials to liability, officials are still entitled to assert a defense of qualified immunity when sued in their individual capacities for monetary damages under RFRA. Qualified immunity shields government officials for being held personally liable for money damages for constitutional violations so long as the officials did not violate a “clearly established” right. The Tanzin Court acknowledged, that the FBI agents were still entitled to raise the defense of qualified immunity. (Id. at p. *5, fn. 2.)
