{"id":2529,"date":"2020-12-11T10:29:54","date_gmt":"2020-12-11T18:29:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2529"},"modified":"2020-12-11T10:54:41","modified_gmt":"2020-12-11T18:54:41","slug":"suing-law-enforcement-officers-over-religious-claims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2529","title":{"rendered":"Suing Law Enforcement Officers Over Religious Claims"},"content":{"rendered":"

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court decided<\/a> that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) permits suits for money damages against government officers, including law enforcement. The Court also indicated in a footnote that qualified immunity applies to these suits, as it does to civil rights suits under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983.<\/p>\n

As a matter of statutory interpretation, the decision is likely correct. The Court’s unanimous (8-0) opinion in Tanzin<\/em> v. Tanvir<\/em>, No. 19-71, is written by Justice Thomas. He has long taken a straight “the statute says what it says” approach, and if the result is bad policy that is Congress’s responsibility, not the courts’.<\/p>\n

The opinion’s sole footnote, on page 8, says:<\/p>\n

Both the Government and respondents agree that government officials are entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense when sued in their individual capacities for money damages under RFRA. Indeed, respondents emphasize that the \u201cqualified immunity defense was created for precisely these circumstances,\u201d Brief for Respondents 22, and is a \u201cpowerful shield\u201d that \u201cprotects all but the plainly incompetent or those who flout clearly established law,\u201d Tr. of Oral Arg. 42; see District of Columbia<\/em> v. Wesby<\/em>, 583 U.\u00a0S. ___, ___\u2013___ (2018) (slip op., at 13\u201315).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is probably obiter dictum<\/em> and not holding. That is, it is a comment made along the way in the opinion, as distinguished from interpretations of law that are necessary to get to the result. Dicta<\/em> are not binding precedent, but lower courts generally go along with what the Supreme Court says in them anyway.<\/p>\n

In my view, money remedies for acts that government officers reasonably deem to be doing their duty but are eventually decided to be constitutional violations should run against the government entity, not the officer personally. Qualified immunity serves an essential function, and to the extent that any change is needed it should be in the direction of expanding liability of the government agency.<\/p>\n

Yesterday’s decision decides only the abstract legal question of whether money damage remedies are available against government agents under RFRA. It does not address whether the plaintiffs’ allegations are true or even whether they have actually stated a case under RFRA.<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs’ allegations are summarized very briefly on page 2. A longer version is stated in the Court of Appeals’ opinion, 894 F.3d 449<\/a>. These are only<\/em> allegations at this point, a distinction that usually gets overlooked in reporting on cases like this. It is entirely possible that the FBI agents had valid reasons for putting Mr. Tanvir et al. on the “no fly list.” The Court of Appeals describes the RFRA complaint thusly:<\/p>\n

According to the complaint, Defendants “forced Plaintiffs into an impermissible choice between, on the one hand, obeying their sincerely held religious beliefs and being subjected to the punishment of placement or retention on the No Fly List, or, on the other hand, violating their sincerely held religious beliefs in order to avoid being placed on the No Fly List or to secure removal from the No Fly List.” App’x at 109 \u00b6 210. Plaintiffs allege that this dilemma placed a substantial burden on their exercise of religion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Mr. Tanvir’s story is told in part I B of the Court of Appeals’ opinion. What strikes me about it is that in over two pages of the small-print Federal Reporter not once does he allege that he informed the FBI agents of the religious basis of his refusal. At least, the Court of Appeals does not mention any such allegation. If he did not, that should be “game over” for his RFRA claim. Government agents should not be responsible for divining a religious objection that the person does not mention himself.<\/p>\n

On November 25, the Supreme Court held in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn<\/em> v. Cuomo<\/em>, No. 20A87, that New York churches were likely to prevail in their suit against Governor Cuomo regarding Covid-related occupancy limits. On December 3, they vacated and remanded a Ninth Circuit decision that had gone against California churches in Harvest Rock Church<\/em> v. Newsom<\/em>, No. 20A94. Under today’s decision, it appears that these churches may also have causes of action against the two governors personally for money damages.<\/p>\n

They may, that is, unless qualified immunity applies. As Congress considers qualified immunity, friends of law enforcement need to draw one clear line in the sand. No weakening of the rule limited to law enforcement officers only. What’s good enough for the cop is good enough for the governor.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) permits suits for money damages against government officers, including law enforcement. The Court also indicated in a footnote that qualified immunity applies to these suits, as it does to civil rights suits under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7,39],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2529","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-civil-suits","category-policing"],"yoast_head":"\nSuing Law Enforcement Officers Over Religious Claims - Crime & Consequences<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2529\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Suing Law Enforcement Officers Over Religious Claims - Crime & Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) permits suits for money damages against government officers, including law enforcement. The Court also indicated in a footnote that qualified immunity applies to these suits, as it does to civil rights suits under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2529\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Crime & Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-12-11T18:29:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-12-11T18:54:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"300\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"400\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Kent Scheidegger\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Kent Scheidegger\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2529\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2529\",\"name\":\"Suing Law Enforcement Officers Over Religious Claims - Crime & Consequences\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-12-11T18:29:54+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-12-11T18:54:41+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2529#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2529\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2529#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Suing Law Enforcement Officers Over Religious Claims\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\",\"name\":\"Crime & Consequences\",\"description\":\"Crime and criminal law\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356\",\"name\":\"Kent Scheidegger\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.cjlf.org\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Suing Law Enforcement Officers Over Religious Claims - Crime & Consequences","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2529","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Suing Law Enforcement Officers Over Religious Claims - Crime & Consequences","og_description":"Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) permits suits for money damages against government officers, including law enforcement. The Court also indicated in a footnote that qualified immunity applies to these suits, as it does to civil rights suits under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2529","og_site_name":"Crime & Consequences","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/","article_published_time":"2020-12-11T18:29:54+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-12-11T18:54:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":300,"height":400,"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Kent Scheidegger","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Kent Scheidegger","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2529","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2529","name":"Suing Law Enforcement Officers Over Religious Claims - Crime & Consequences","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-12-11T18:29:54+00:00","dateModified":"2020-12-11T18:54:41+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2529#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2529"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2529#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Suing Law Enforcement Officers Over Religious Claims"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/","name":"Crime & Consequences","description":"Crime and criminal law","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356","name":"Kent Scheidegger","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.cjlf.org"],"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2529","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2529"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2529\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2539,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2529\/revisions\/2539"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2529"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2529"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2529"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}