Activity

Heres one

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________
No. 19–71
_________________
FNU TANZIN, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. MUHAMMAD
TANVIR, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
[December 10, 2020]
JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA)
prohibits the Federal Government from imposing substantial burdens on religious exercise, absent a compelling interest pursued through the least restrictive means. 107
Stat. 1488, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq. It also gives a person
whose religious exercise has been unlawfully burdened the
right to seek “appropriate relief.” The question here is
whether “appropriate relief” includes claims for money
damages against Government officials in their individual
capacities. We hold that it does.
I
A
RFRA secures Congress’ view of the right to free exercise
under the First Amendment, and it provides a remedy to
redress violations of that right. Congress passed the Act in
the wake of this Court’s decision in Employment Div., Dept.
of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872, 885–
890 (1990), which held that the First Amendment tolerates
neutral, generally applicable laws that burden or prohibit 2 TANZIN v. TANVIR
Opinion of the Court
religious acts even when the laws are unsupported by a narrowly tailored, compelling governmental interest. See
§2000bb(a). RFRA sought to counter the effect of that holding and restore the pre-Smith “compelling interest test” by
“provid[ing] a claim . . . to persons whose religious exercise
is substantially burdened by government.” §§2000bb(b)(1)–
(2). That right of action enables a person to “obtain appropriate relief against a government.” §2000bb–1(c). A “‘government’” 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).
B
Respondents Muhammad Tanvir, Jameel Algibhah, an