An important SCOTUS decision that was not publicized.
As much as the Trump lawsuits are being heralded, we did not hear about one ruling that was IMHO very favorable to reign in Federal misbehavior.
Arlington, Va.—In a unanimous opinion issued today by the U.S. Supreme Court, and authored by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court ruled in Tanzin v. Tanvir that individuals may seek damages as a remedy when federal officers violate their rights. The opinion closely tracks an amicus brief submitted by the Institute for Justice.
The case involved FBI agents who retaliated against Muslim-Americans and green-card holders who followed the dictates of their faith and refused to cooperate with the FBI by spying on their own communities. As a result of their refusal to cooperate, these individuals were placed on the No Fly List, which caused significant hardship, such as the inability to travel to visit family or for work.
But before you start jumping for joy believing Qualified Immunity is dead, it is not:
Both the Government and respondents agree that government officials are entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense when sued in their individual capacities for money damages under RFRA. Indeed, respondents emphasize that the “qualified immunity defense was created for precisely these circumstances,” Brief for Respondents 22, and is a “powerful shield” that “protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who flout clearly established law,” Tr. of Oral Arg. 42; see District of Columbia v. Wesby
I believe the decision (that you can read here) removes at least one important layer of governmental shielding protecting them when abuse happens. I do not read anything about being constricted to the Federal Government (which needs it badly) so I think it can be applied also to to your state or local agency. Basically while you still can’t sue the shitty Parkland Sheriff’s Deputies, the parents can bring havoc to BSO.
And of course, the above must be seen under the usual IANAL warning.
Hat Tip to Dan R.
