The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled unanimously in favor of three Muslim men suing FBI officials for targeting their religious faith.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the court’s opinion that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the men had the ability to seek money damages against federal officials in their individual capacities. Thomas’s argument rested on his interpretation of the phrase “appropriate relief” in the 1993 federal law’s text, which he said allowed the men to seek financial compensation.
The case, Tanzin v. Tanvir, involved three Muslim men who said that in 2013, the FBI put them on the no-fly list after they refused to inform on fellow members of their faith. The men alleged that federal agents abused the power of the list and violated RFRA by placing “substantial burdens” on their free exercise of faith.
The federal government, arguing against the men, Muhammad Tanvir, Jameel Algibhah, and Naveed Shinwari, maintained that the act’s application only applies to the government as a whole and that to allow people to sue agents in a personal capacity would force “even well-intentioned federal employees” to “navigate a minefield of liability that would be difficult to predict or avoid.” Furthermore, the government argued, the law’s “appropriate relief” provision is too vague to permit monetary compensation necessarily.
Thomas, in his opinion, disagreed with that interpretation, writing that in RFRA, the definition of “government” extends “beyond the term’s plain meaning to include officials” and that “official” refers not just to the office, but also to the person filling that office.
“Under RFRA’s definition, relief that can be executed against an ‘official … of the United States’ is ‘relief against a government,'” Thomas wrote.
Thomas added that RFRA’s “open-ended” language on appropriate relief, allowed, given the context, for the men to seek money damages.
The court’s unanimous agreement in the case won praise from religious liberty advocates, who, before it was argued, noted a growing consensus on the issue even before Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed by the Senate. Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which filed an amicus brief in the case, noted that the 8-0 decision “emphasized” the seriousness with which the court regards freedom of religion.
“This is a good decision that makes it easier to hold the government accountable when it violates Americans’ religious liberties,” she said in a statement.
The court this summer decided several major religious liberty cases by wide margins, which has since been strengthened by Barrett’s addition to the court. In July, it settled Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania 7-2, a case it previously sent back to lower courts. It also decided Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru in an equally wide margin, giving religious institutions wider latitude in their hiring and firing practices. In both cases, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was one of the two dissenting votes.
