Lawgeeks, there's an interesting statutory interpretation case coming up for argument at SCOTUS in a little bit this morning, Tanzin v. Tanvir.
-
-
Ordinarily, we expect Congress to speak explicitly when it makes the federal (or state) government's liable for monetary damages.
Show this thread -
Here, Congress simply wrote that a prevailing person may obtain “appropriate relief against a government” where government is defined to include, among other things, an "official (or other person acting under color of law)."
Show this thread -
The statutory interpretation question boils down to: what did Congress mean by "appropriate" when it wrote "appropriate relief"? It's a fun question, and I expect the 2d Cir. to get slapped down pretty thoroughly 6-2 or 7-1 for saying money damages are available under RFRA.
Show this thread -
The underlying facts are pretty compelling, and you know what they say about cases with bad facts. The 2d Cir. split. The case is from several Muslim men who say they were placed on no-fly lists after 9/11 as retaliation for refusing to spy on their coreligionists.
Show this thread -
All of their other claims have been dismissed. So the only thing they have left is if RFRA authorizes monetary damages against individual federal officials in their personal capacities.
Show this thread -
A split 2d Cir. said they could get those damages. But SCOTUS is likely to disagree. Three reasons. (1) Congress must explicitly authorize monetary damages against sovereigns (fed or state). (2) The word "appropriate" is ambiguous.
Show this thread -
(3) In a 2011 case, SCOTUS by Justice Thomas, and joined by CJ Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Alito held that an analogous provision in RLUIPA does not allow monetary damages.
Show this thread -
RLUIPA, you may recall, followed RFRA, and applied a similar standard and statutory scheme to religious freedom in the context of land use and prisons. So SCOTUS textualists have already addressed a very similar question.
Show this thread -
Anyway, that argument will begin shortly and be streamed here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?469264-1/tanzin-v-tanvir-oral-argument … They're just finishing up an ERISA case (booo) they heard first today.
Show this thread -
BTW, there are lots of policy arguments to be made about whether Congress *should* authorize monetary damages under RFRA. Most of the amicus briefs come at the case from that direction. But today's case is purely one of statutory interpretation.
Show this thread -
(I tend to think that if something isn't broke, the 2d Cir. doesn't need to fix it. RFRA has worked well for twenty-five years. If money damages are available under it, we need a more explicit statement from Congress that we've been reading the statute wrong all this time.)
Show this thread -
Alright, that was very interesting. It's always a fool's errand to predict where things will end up, but let's do it anyway. This sounds like the CJ, Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Kavanaugh in majority to reverse. Justices Sotomayor and Breyer in dissent for similar reasons to Sossamon.
Show this thread -
And a surprise separate dissent from Justice Gorsuch on his theory (he was the only one to touch on this) that remedies is now governed by transubstantive law, and doesn't limit the court's power to award damages against the gov't. (I think Gorsuch may have been playing here.)
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.