FNU Tanzin v. Tanvir

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
FNU Tanzin v. Tanvir
Term: 2020-2021
(Originally 2019-2020)
Important Dates
Argument: October 6, 2020
Decided: December 10, 2020
Outcome
Affirmed
Vote
8-0
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh

FNU Tanzin v. Tanvir is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on October 6, 2020, during the court's October 2020-2021 term. The case concerned the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. It came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

The court affirmed the 2nd Circuit's decision in an 8-0 ruling, holding that under the RFRA, individuals may sue government officials in their individual capacities and obtain monetary damages.[1] Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court. Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not take part in the case's opinion. Click here for more information about the ruling.

Oral argument was initially scheduled for March 24, 2020, during the court's October 2019-2020 term. However, the U.S. Supreme Court announced on March 16, 2020, that it was postponing the 11 oral arguments originally scheduled during its March sitting. In a press release, the court said the delay was "in keeping with public health precautions recommended in response to COVID-19."[2] COVID-19 was the abbreviation for coronavirus disease 2019, caused by SARS-CoV-2.

  • Click here for more information about the court's response to the coronavirus pandemic.
  • Click here for more information about political responses to the pandemic.
HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Muhammad Tanvir, Jameel Algibah, and Naveed Shinwari, three Muslim men born outside of the U.S. but living lawfully inside the country, were approached by FBI agents and asked to act as informants. Citing their religious beliefs, the three men declined. Tanvir, Algibah, and Shinwari alleged the FBI agents then retaliated against their refusal to act as informants by placing them on the national "No Fly List." They sued the agents in their official and individual capacities in U.S. federal court under the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the RFRA. The U.S. District Court dismissed the claims against the agents in their individual capacity. The three men appealed to the 2nd Circuit Court, which reversed the lower court's ruling. FBI Special Agent FNU (First Name Unknown) Tanzin moved for the circuit court to rehear the case en banc. The circuit court denied the motion. Tanzin then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a hearing.[3]
  • The issue: Does the RFRA's provision allowing individuals to "obtain appropriate relief against a government" include money damages against federal employees sued in their individual capacities?[3]
  • The outcome: The court affirmed the 2nd Circuit's decision in an 8-0 ruling, holding that under the RFRA, individuals may sue government officials in their individual capacities and obtain monetary damages.[1] Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court. Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not take part in the case's opinion.


    • Click here to review the lower court's opinion not to rehear the case en banc. Click here to review the lower court's original opinion.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • December 10, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling.
    • October 6, 2020: Oral argument was heard.
    • March 16, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court postponed its March sitting. Oral argument in FNU Tanzin v. Tanvir was initially scheduled for March 24, 2020.
    • November 22, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • July 12, 2019: FNU (First Name Unknown) Tanzin et al., the petitioners, filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • February 14, 2019: The 2nd Circuit denied a petition for a rehearing en banc.
    • May 2, 2018: The 2nd Circuit reversed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and remanded the case.

    Background

    General overview

    Muhammad Tanvir, Jameel Algibah, and Naveed Shinwari, were born outside of the United States and later moved to the U.S., where they became U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. The three men, who practice Islam, claimed that Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents approached them about serving as FBI informants. The men alleged the FBI asked them to gather information and report on Muslim communities. Tanvir, Algibah, and Shinwari, citing their religious beliefs, decided not to act as informants.[4]

    Tanvir, Algibah, and Shinwari also claimed that the FBI retaliated against their refusal to act as informants by placing or maintaining the three men on the national "No Fly List", a list of individuals maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center and administered by the FBI. Individuals on the "No Fly List" are prohibited from flying into, out of, or over the United States.[4]

    In the 2nd Circuit's ruling, the court used the story of Muhammad Tanvir as an example of the three men's experiences.

    Muhammad Tanvir

    Tanvir was born in Pakistan. In February 2007, he lived in Queens, New York. His wife, son, and parents lived in Pakistan. Tanvir alleged that FBI Special Agents FNU (First Name Unknown) Tanzin and John Doe 1 repeatedly over several years asked Tanvir to become an FBI informant. Tanvir refused each time.[4]

    Tanvir alleged that he faced retaliation for refusing to act as an informant. In 2010, Tanvir was working as a long-haul trucker, in which he would drive across the country and then fly back to New York. In October 2010, Tanvir was in Atlanta, Georgia, for work and learned his mother was visiting the U.S. from Pakistan. He booked a ticket to New York but was told at the airport that he could not fly. Tanvir said some FBI agents in Georgia contacted him and said they could remove him from the "No Fly List" if he answered their questions. Tanvir declined. Believing he could no longer fly, he ended his employment as a long-haul trucker.[4]

    On September 27, 2011, Tanvir filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Traveler Redress Inquiry Program, which the 2nd Circuit's ruling described as "an administrative mechanism for filing a complaint about placement on the 'No Fly List.'" In April 2012, DHS responded to the complaint, saying "no changes or corrections are warranted at this time." Tanvir appealed the decision. The DHS overturned it in March 2013.[4]

    Procedural history

    On October 1, 2013, Tanvir, Algibah, and Shinwari filed a complaint against the FBI agents, claiming the FBI "violated their constitutional and statutory rights by placing their names on the 'No Fly List'—even though they posed no threat to aviation safety—in retaliation for their refusal to become informants for the government."

    The three men sued the agents in their official capacities, claiming the agents violated the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The three men also sued the agents individually, seeking compensatory and punitive damages under the First Amendment and the RFRA.[4]

    On September 3, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the claims against the agents in their individual capacity. The district court held the RFRA "does not permit the recovery of money damages from federal officers sued in their individual capacities." Tanvir, Algibah, and Shinwari appealed this ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.[4]

    On May 2, 2018, the 2nd Circuit ruled in favor of Tanvir, Algibah, and Shinwari. The court reversed the Southern District of New York's decision and remanded the case. Special Agent Tanzin moved for the circuit court to rehear the case en banc. The circuit court denied the motion on February 14, 2019.[3]

    Special Agent Tanzin petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. In the petition, Tanzin argued, "The court of appeals’ anomalous ruling clears the way for a slew of future suits against national-security officials, criminal investigators, correctional officers, and countless other federal employees, seeking to hold them personally liable for alleged burdens on any of the myriad religious practices engaged in by the people of our Nation."[3]

    Religious Freedom Restoration Act

    The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 prohibits the U.S. government from infringing on religious exercise. It also provides individuals with the right to seek relief when their right to religious exercise has been violated. The law was enacted after Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990).[1]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:

    Questions presented:
    • Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq., permits suits seeking money damages against individual federal employees.[3]

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[5]



    Transcript

    Outcome

    In an 8-0 opinion, the court affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, holding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act's (RFRA) "express remedies provision permits litigants, when appropriate, to obtain money damages against federal officials in their individual capacities."[1]

    Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion of the court. Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not take part in the decision. She was not a member of the court when arguments were held.[1]

    Opinion

    In his opinion, Justice Thomas wrote that, based on the RFRA's text, litigants may sue government employees in their personal capacity. He also wrote that "appropriate relief" under the RFRA depended on the context. In this case's context, the court held that "appropriate relief" included money damages.[1]

    “ We first have to determine if injured parties can sue Government officials in their personal capacities. RFRA’s text provides a clear answer: They can. Persons may sue and obtain relief “against a government,” §2000bb–1(c), which is defined to include “a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting under color of law) of the United States.” §2000bb–2(1) (emphasis added). ... A suit against an official in his personal capacity is a suit against a person acting under color of law. And a suit against a person acting under color of law is a suit against “a government,” as defined under RFRA. §2000bb–1(c).

    ...
    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 RFRA violations.
    ...
    We conclude that RFRA’s express remedies provision permits litigants, when appropriate, to obtain money damages against federal officials in their individual capacities. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed.[6]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Text of the opinion

    Click here to read the full opinion.

    October term 2020-2021

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 5, 2020. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[7]

    The court issued 67 opinions during its 2020-2021 term. Two cases were decided in one consolidated opinion. Ten cases were decided without argument. Click here for more information on the court's opinions.

    The court agreed to hear 62 cases during its 2020-2021 term. Of those, 12 were originally scheduled for the 2019-2020 term but were delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Five cases were removed from the argument calendar.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Supreme Court of the United States, FNU Tanzin v. Tanvir, decided December 10, 2020
    2. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Press release from March 16, 2020," accessed March 16, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Supreme Court of the United States, "Petition for a writ of certiorari: FNU Tanzin v. Tanvir," accessed November 25, 2019
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, Tanvir v. Tanzin, decided May 2, 2018
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," accessed October 12, 2020
    6. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court," accessed April 20, 2015
    v • e
    Ballotpedia
    About
    Editorial Content
    Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-Chief • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Frank Festa • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Hosea • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Alexis Thacker • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Mercedes Yanora
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=FNU_Tanzin_v._Tanvir&oldid=8891500"