Supreme Court decision paves way for big change to Sovereign Immunity law

The case arose when a group of muslim men – citing sincerely held religious beliefs – refused to cooperate with the FBI when asked to spy on other members of their community. In retaliation for the group of men failing to cooperate, the FBI placed the men on a “Do Not Fly” list – which prevented their ability to travel for any reason. This led the men to be estranged from their families and even lose jobs. For example, Muhammed Tanvir was an over the road trucker, which often required him to fly home after long trips. Since he was placed on the “Do Not Fly” list – he was unable to continue in this employ. 

As a result, the Plaintiffs brought suit against the FBI Agents. In this lawsuit, the group of men asked for damages for the violations of their religious rights. This claim was based in the 1993 statute known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (or “RFRA” for short). This law provides an American citizen whose religious rights are violated by government actors to “obtain any appropriate relief against a government.” The broad phrasing of this statement has often led to litigation about just what relief is “appropriate” in a given fact pattern. 

In this case, the United States argued that “appropriate relief” does not include monetary damages. This is a unique argument in civil rights cases – as money damages are frequently the subject of lawsuits between regular people. In so arguing, the United States was asserting that government employees should be treated differently than regular citizens – leaning heavily on policy arguments that law suits against government actors should be generally disfavored and that the status as a government employee should confer near limitless protections to their legal exposure.