Skip To Content
Get Our Newsletter
JEWISH. INDEPENDENT. NONPROFIT.

Support the Forward

Funded by readers like you DonateSubscribe
Fast Forward

Supreme Court rules that government employees who infringe religious liberty can be held personally liable

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that people can obtain monetary damages directly from employees of the federal government when suing over infringement of the First Amendment right to religious liberty.

The ruling responds to a case filed by several Muslim men who said that FBI officers placed them on a no-fly list because they refused to inform on their religious community. Those men can now legally win damages from those specific FBI officers.

Being placed on the no-fly list led the men to lose “precious years with loved ones, plus jobs and educational opportunities,” Ramzi Kassem, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told the justices during oral arguments in October, according to The Washington Post.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the 8-0 opinion. The case was argued before Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court.

The plaintiffs sued under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed nearly unanimously by both the House and Senate in 1993, which prohibits the government from placing a “substantial burden” on a person’s religious practice.

The law allows citizens to seek “appropriate relief” from the government. Politicians who helped pass the law said at the time that it did not mean for individual federal employees to be personally subject to damages, but the court ruled that the law nevertheless allows for that consequence. However, Thomas also wrote that government officials can argue that they have qualified immunity, meaning that they are not liable for damages in civil cases when following the law in their role as federal employees.

Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the court system for Slate, suggested on Twitter that the ruling could lead to federal officials not enforcing nondiscrimination laws for fear of being personally sued in civil court. For example, there have been instances in which people who courts have found to be violating nondiscrimination laws against LGBTQ people have claimed religious liberty as a defense.

Ari Feldman is a staff writer at the Forward. Contact him at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter @aefeldman

Engage

  • SHARE YOUR FEEDBACK

  • UPCOMING EVENT

Republish This Story

Please read before republishing

We’re happy to make this story available to republish for free under an Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives Creative Commons license as long as you follow our republishing guidelines, which require that you credit Foward and retain our pixel. See our full guidelines for more information.

To republish, copy the HTML, which includes our tracking pixel, all paragraph styles and hyperlinks, the author byline, and credit to Foward. Have questions? Please email us at [email protected]

We don't support Internet Explorer

Please use Chrome, Safari, Firefox, or Edge to view this site.