2nd Circuit: FBI Agents Had Qualified Immunity From RFRA Damages When Muslim Plaintiffs' Religious Objections Were Undisclosed

In Tanvir v. Tanzin, (2d Cir., Oct. 29, 2024), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed on qualified immunity grounds a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court in 2020 held (see prior posting) that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act permits suits for damages against federal officials. The 2nd Circuit said in part:

... [E]ach of the three Appellants in this case encountered various FBI agents who asked him to serve as an informant in Muslim communities, and each was illegitimately placed or retained on the No Fly List when he declined. Each Appellant possessed a belief, allegedly shared by some other Muslims, that precluded him from serving as an informant in a Muslim community. But no Appellant ever disclosed that view to any agent. Instead, each stated that he: (1) refused to work as an informant because being an informant would endanger himself or his family, or (2) would agree to work as an informant under the right circumstances....

Appellees had no reason to know that their actions encroached on the Appellants’ religious beliefs. As noted above, “[e]ven when we find a right clearly established,” officials are still immune from damages liability if “reasonable persons in their position would not have understood that their conduct was within the scope of the established prohibition.”...

We recognize the Appellants’ view that Muslims in America have been unfairly targeted. But we disagree with their conclusion that a Christian or Jewish plaintiff in like circumstances would have greater success in a RFRA damages suit. No doubt, many would find any effort to recruit informants to infiltrate religious congregations, including Muslim, as well as Christian or Jewish congregations, offensive. We have no reason to assume, however, that a reasonable government official would know that a Christian or Jew could not work with government agents to expose terrorists in her religious community without violating her religious norms. It is far from obvious – indeed, it cannot be the case – that an adherent of either of those (or any) religions could hold an undisclosed religious belief, of which an official had no other reason to know, and then successfully sue the official for monetary damages for pressuring them to act in tension with that undisclosed belief.

Nothing in this ruling should be construed as approving the conduct alleged in the complaint. At its core, the complaint alleges that government agents pressured individuals to serve as informants – at risk to their own and their families’ safety – and to report on the activities of their neighbors and community members by falsely and in bad faith accusing them of terrorism to deny them significant liberties under a program designed to protect lives from genuine terrorists. That is improper behavior, regardless of whether the agents knew of the Appellants’ particular religious beliefs. But in this case, the Appellants’ only remaining legal claim is that the Appellee agents are personally liable in damages for violating their free exercise of religion under RFRA. On the facts alleged, for the reasons discussed above, that claim fails.

2nd Circuit: Muslim Plaintiffs Can Seek Money Damages Under RFRA For No-Fly List Abuse

In Tanvir v. Tanzin, (2d Cir., June 25, 2018), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs asserting a claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act may recover money damages against federal officials sued in their individual capacities.  At issue in the case were assertions by three Muslim men who are residents of New York or Connecticut that federal law enforcement officials placed or retained them on the No Fly List because they refused, in part for religious reasons, to act as FBI informants. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

2nd Circuit: Damages Available In Individual Capacity Suits Under RFRA

In Tanvir v. Tanzin, (2d Cir., May 2, 2018), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a plaintiff may sue federal officials in their individual capacities and may recover monetary damages from them. The holding comes in a lawsuit by three Muslims who claim that their names were placed on the "No Fly List" in retaliation for their refusal to serve as government informants.  The Court, reversing the district court and remanding, said in part:

We agree with the Third Circuit’s reasoning in Mack [v. Warden Loretto FCI] and adopt it here. In particular, we reject a strained reading of “appropriate relief” that would be less generous to plaintiffs under RFRA than under implied rights of action, and thus would undermine Congress’s intention to “provide broad religious liberty protections.” Id.  Further, as one district court has pointed out, “[i]t seems unlikely that Congress would restrict the kind of remedies available to plaintiffs who challenge free exercise violations in the same statute it passed to elevate the kind of scrutiny to which such challenges would be entitled.” Jama, 343 F. Supp.2d at 374‐75 (emphasis in original).

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision. [Thanks to Daniel Benson for the lead.]

Constitutionality Of No-Fly List Upheld

In Mohamed v. Holder, (ED VA, July 20, 2017), a Virginia federal district court upheld the constitutionality of the government's No-Fly List in a challenge by a Muslim American citizen originally from Somalia.  One of plaintiff's challenges implicated religious freedom rights. The court said in part:

He argues that many First Amendment freedoms, such as the free exercise of religion, cannot be fully enjoyed without recognizing the right to travel internationally, such as by traveling to Mecca to fulfill the Islamic duty of hajj....  

There is much to warrant extending the fundamental right to travel or movement to include international travel. As Plaintiff correctly observes, the right to international travel is recognized by international agreements to which the United States is a party, and in today’s world, restricting a person’s right to international travel can, in some circumstances, have as profound an adverse effect on a person’s ability to exercise other liberty interests as a restriction on the right to interstate travel. .... 

Nevertheless, the United States also has a long history of judicially sanctioned restrictions on citizens’ international travel in the interests of foreign affairs and national security that would never have been countenanced with respect to interstate travel.... Moreover, the Supreme Court has strongly implied, though it has not explicitly stated, that there is no fundamental right to international travel.

Utah Imam On No-Fly List Allowed To Return After Suit Filed

A lawsuit was filed on Friday in federal district court in Utah seeking an emergency Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction to require authorities to allow Yussuf Awadir Abdi, imam of a Salt Lake City mosque, to return to the United States from Kenya.  According to the motion and brief in support (full text) in Abdi v. McCabe, (D UT, filed 6/16/2017), Abdi had traveled to Kenya to bring his wife and children to the United States. His wife and his 2 non-U.S. citizen children had recetly been approved for visas. When Abdi attempted to board his plane in Kenya, he learned that he had been placed on the "No Fly List" while in Kenya. Previously he had been on the Selectee List-- which still allowed him to fly after special screening. The suit argues that the No Fly List violates Abdi's constitutionally protected right of movement protected by the Due Process Clause. Fox13 News reports on the lawsuit.

Subsequent to the filing of the lawsuit, American authorities relented and allowed Abdi, who has been an American citizen since 2010-- to return to the United States on a Qatar Airlines flight which arrived Saturday. (Salt Lake Tribune).