{"id":4373,"date":"2021-02-04T16:05:58","date_gmt":"2021-02-04T16:05:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=4373"},"modified":"2021-02-04T16:05:58","modified_gmt":"2021-02-04T16:05:58","slug":"the-supreme-court-hands-down-a-loss-for-rogue-law-enforcement-officers-and-a-win-for-the-religious-right","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=4373","title":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court hands down a loss for rogue law enforcement officers \u2014 and a win for the religious right"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\n\n“The Supreme Court\u2019s 8-0 decision in Tanzin v. Tanvir<\/em><\/a>on Thursday is almost certainly correct as a matter of law. Justice Clarence Thomas\u2019s majority opinion was unanimous (Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who joined the Court too late to hear this case, did not participate), and it relies on a fairly straightforward reading of a federal religious liberty law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tanzin <\/em>holds that federal officials may be personally liable if they violate an individual\u2019s religious rights \u2014 a ruling that could benefit many religious liberty plaintiffs with genuinely heartbreaking claims against government officials, including the plaintiffs in this case. But it also potentially hands a new weapon to conservative culture warriors who seek broad exemptions from federal law<\/a>.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“The plaintiffs are Muslims who claim that FBI agencies placed themon the no-fly list in retaliation for the plaintiffs\u2019 refusal to act as informants against other members of their Muslim communities. One of these plaintiffs, Muhammad Tanvir, alleged that he was unable to see his ailing mother in Pakistan, and that he had to quit his job as a long-haul trucker because he could no longer fly home after a one-way delivery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court\u2019s decision in Tanzin<\/em> means that these Muslim plaintiffs will be allowed to seek money damages from the FBI agents who allegedly violated their religious rights \u2014 although it is possible that the agents will escape liability because of a doctrine known as \u201cqualified immunity<\/a>.\u201d”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 …<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“In recent years, the Court\u2019s conservative majority has also appeared very eager to expand the rights of religious conservatives to sue government officials, and some of the Court\u2019s recent decisions suggest that such officials violate the law if they commit fairly minor slights against certain people of faith.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission<\/em><\/a> (2018), for example, the Court scolded a state civil rights commissioner who made the objectively true statement that \u201cfreedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So one implication of Tanzin<\/em> is that religious conservatives may now be able to seek money damages from federal officials for violations that, until recently, the courts would have viewed as entirely benign.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The policy implications of Tanzin<\/em>, in other words, are likely to spark ambivalence<\/a> among liberals and conservatives alike. Outside of the religious liberty context, conservative judges have generally been hostile<\/a> to efforts to make law enforcement officers personally liable for their illegal actions. Liberals, meanwhile, will undoubtedly have sympathy for the Tanzin<\/em> plaintiffs. But the Court\u2019s decision is also likely to empower religious conservatives who seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws and other policies favored by liberals.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“The good news is that FBI agents and other law enforcement officers are likely to think twice before committing violations similar to the ones alleged by the\u00a0Tanzin\u00a0<\/em>plaintiffs. But government officials may become more cautious about enforcing civil rights and other laws against religious objectors \u2014 because those officials could potentially pay a personal price if they do so.”\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.vox.com\/2020\/12\/10\/22167672\/supreme-court-tanzin-tanvir-clarence-thomas-religion-muslim-rfra-religous-liberty<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“The Supreme Court\u2019s 8-0 decision in Tanzin v. Tanvir on Thursday is almost certainly correct as a matter of law. Justice Clarence Thomas\u2019s majority opinion was unanimous (Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who joined the Court too late to hear this case, did not participate), and it relies on a fairly straightforward reading of a federal religious liberty law.<\/p>\n

Tanzin holds that federal officials may be personally liable if they violate an individual\u2019s religious rights \u2014 a ruling that could benefit many religious liberty plaintiffs with genuinely heartbreaking claims against government officials, including the plaintiffs in this case. But it also potentially hands a new weapon to conservative culture warriors who seek broad exemptions from federal law.”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“The plaintiffs are Muslims who claim that FBI agencies placed them on the no-fly list in retaliation for the plaintiffs\u2019 refusal to act as informants against other members of their Muslim communities. One of these plaintiffs, Muhammad Tanvir, alleged that he was unable to see his ailing mother in Pakistan, and that he had to quit his job as a long-haul trucker because he could no longer fly home after a one-way delivery.<\/p>\n

The Court\u2019s decision in Tanzin means that these Muslim plaintiffs will be allowed to seek money damages from the FBI agents who allegedly violated their religious rights \u2014 although it is possible that the agents will escape liability because of a doctrine known as \u201cqualified immunity.\u201d”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“In recent years, the Court\u2019s conservative majority has also appeared very eager to expand the rights of religious conservatives to sue government officials, and some of the Court\u2019s recent decisions suggest that such officials violate the law if they commit fairly minor slights against certain people of faith.<\/p>\n

In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), for example, the Court scolded a state civil rights commissioner who made the objectively true statement that \u201cfreedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history.\u201d<\/p>\n

So one implication of Tanzin is that religious conservatives may now be able to seek money damages from federal officials for violations that, until recently, the courts would have viewed as entirely benign.<\/p>\n

The policy implications of Tanzin, in other words, are likely to spark ambivalence among liberals and conservatives alike. Outside of the religious liberty context, conservative judges have generally been hostile to efforts to make law enforcement officers personally liable for their illegal actions. Liberals, meanwhile, will undoubtedly have sympathy for the Tanzin plaintiffs. But the Court\u2019s decision is also likely to empower religious conservatives who seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws and other policies favored by liberals.”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“The good news is that FBI agents and other law enforcement officers are likely to think twice before committing violations similar to the ones alleged by the Tanzin plaintiffs. But government officials may become more cautious about enforcing civil rights and other laws against religious objectors \u2014 because those officials could potentially pay a personal price if they do so.” <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[281,285,57,528],"class_list":["post-4373","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article-share","tag-law-enforcement","tag-police","tag-religion","tag-supreme-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4373","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4373"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4373\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4374,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4373\/revisions\/4374"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4373"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4373"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4373"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}