Tanzin v. Tanvir

At the center of the case were three men of the Muslim community with either U.S. citizenship or lawful permanent residency. In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the men were approached by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents for questioning, though not for any involvement of terrorist activity. Instead, the FBI wanted the men to "[serve] as government spies in their religious communities".[1] The men refused, and the FBI pushed the matter, threatening to add their names to the Transportation Security Administration's No Fly List. The men continued to refuse to participate, and the FBI followed through by adding them to the No Fly List around 2013.[2] The men tried repeated to have their names removed through the TSA, but were directed to the FBI, who continued to state that if they cooperated by becoming an informant in the Muslim communities, they would have their names removed. The men lost money on plane tickets that they could not use, as well as being unable to travel to see their families overseas or for other work-related functions.[1]

The three men sued the FBI in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Upon commencement of legal action, the FBI took steps to remove their names from the No Fly List, and stated that the case should be considered moot. The plaintiffs continued the case, seeking monetary compensation, asserting that this was allowed for by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which allows for one to "obtain appropriate relief against a government" when their religious rights were harmed by a federal officer of the government. The District Court ruled to dismiss the case, asserting that the "appropriate relief" clause of the RFRA does not allow for monetary recovery from such damages and that with the removal from the No Fly List, there were no further remedies the men could pursue.[1]

The men appealed to the Second Circuit Appeals Court, which reversed the District Court's decision in May 2018 to allow their case to go forward. The Second Circuit found the District Court erred in the reading of the RFRA since the suit was directed at the specific agents of the FBI whose actions had adversely affected the men's religious freedom, and that monetary compensation was considered part of the appropriate relief that could be awarded.[3] The Second Circuit declined to rehear the case en banc.

The FBI agents, supported by the federal government, petitioned their case to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari in November 2019. The government in its petition claimed that the Second Circuit's decision would "[clear] the way for a slew of future suits against national security officials, criminal investigators, correctional officers and countless other federal employees, seeking to hold them personally liable for alleged burdens on any of the myriad religious practices engaged in by the people of our nation."[3]

Oral arguments for the case were held on October 6, 2020 via teleconference due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Justice Amy Coney Barrett had not yet been confirmed by the Senate to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg by this point, and thus took no part in the case.[4]

The Court issued its decision on December 10, 2020; the unanimous decision was written by Justice Clarence Thomas and upheld the Second Circuit's decision that the RFRA does allow for monetary damages to be sought against federal agents.[5] Thomas wrote that "For certain injuries, such as respondents' wasted plane tickets, effective relief consists of damages, not an injunction." Thomas rejected the arguments from the government that they needed to protect the agents from such lawsuits, stating "To be sure, there may be policy reasons why Congress may wish to shield Government employees from personal liability, and Congress is free to do so. But there are no constitutional reasons why we must do so in its stead." Thomas also said that the officers in question might escape liability under the principle of qualified immunity.[6] The decision remands the case back to the District Court for review of monetary damages.