Story at a glance
- The men said they rejected the request to serve as FBI informants within their Muslim communities because it violated their religious beliefs.
- They said the move harmed their reputation and cost them money due to a loss of job opportunities and airline tickets.
- The high court on Thursday upheld a lower court ruling allowing the three foreign-born men to sue for financial damages under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that three Muslim men who said they were placed on a no-fly list for refusing to become government informants can sue federal agents for damages.
Muhammad Tanvir, Jameel Algibhah and Naveed Shinwari claim FBI agents put them on the government’s no-fly list after they declined to inform on fellow Muslims. The men said they rejected the request to serve as FBI informants within their Muslim communities because it violated their religious beliefs.
America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.
“Rather than accepting that refusal, the FBI agents persisted — in some instances threatening individual Respondents with deportation and arrest and in other instances offering financial incentives and assistance with family members’ immigration to the United States,” Ramzi Kassem, an attorney for the three men, wrote in court papers.
While the Department of Homeland Security eventually removed them from the list and allowed them to fly following a lawsuit, the men said the move harmed their reputation and cost them money due to a loss of job opportunities and airline tickets.
The high court on Thursday upheld a lower court ruling allowing the three foreign-born men to sue for financial damages under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The federal law prohibits the federal government from imposing substantial burdens on religious exercise.
“A person whose exercise of religion has been unlawfully burdened may ‘obtain appropriate relief against a government,’”conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, quoting the law. Thomas said the term “government” extends to individual officials.
“A damages remedy is not just ‘appropriate’ relief as viewed through the lens of suits against government employees. It is also the only form of relief that can remedy some [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] violations,” he wrote. Thomas noted there’s no guarantee the men will successfully collect any damages from the agents.
Justice Amy Coney-Barrett, the newest member of the court, did not participate in the case as she had not yet joined the court when the cases were argued.
READ MORE LIKE THIS FROM CHANGING AMERICA
THE CREEK FREEDMEN PUSH FOR INDIGENOUS TRIBAL RIGHTS DECADES AFTER BEING DISENFRANCHISED
BLM ACTIVIST CORI BUSH WINS IN MISSOURI, BECOMES STATE’S FIRST BLACK CONGRESSWOMAN
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION REVOKES RESERVATION STATUS FOR NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBE
HOW THE CORONAVIRUS PRESENTS A UNIQUE THREAT TO THE LGBT+ COMMUNITY
IDAHO’S CONTROVERSIAL NEW TRANS RIGHTS BILLS FACE LEGAL CHALLENGES
changing america copyright.
