Religious freedom is not a narrow, partisan issue. Potential threats to this freedom come from many different administrations and cut across religious affiliations.

The Case: The New York Times recently shared an article on an interesting case involving a Muslim man who says he was put on the federal no-fly list because he would not agree to inform on fellow Muslims to the FBI. Doing so, he argued, would violate his religious beliefs by making him a spy on his religious community. As a result, he alleges, he was prevented from flying – causing serious personal and professional repercussions.

Muhammad Tanvir is now suing the government for damages.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has weighed in for Tanvir. Its argument is persuasive – that a guarantee of religious freedom is hollow without effective ways to enforce it.

In other words, unless the law allows a person whose religious freedom was infringed upon to get compensation from the offender, then that offender (in this case the government) would have little incentive to stop the wrongful behavior.

If the claims in the case are true (something the court is required to verify at this point since there has not yet been any trial on the facts), the court should allow for damages paid to Tanvir.

The Background: The legal question this raises is whether the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) allows a person whose religious freedom is unfairly burdened by the government to sue for damages. The act says: “A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government.”

The Potential Ruling: This is not a simple issue because we don’t want to unfairly constrain government officials as they do their job. On the other hand, we don’t want to tolerate abuses of religious freedom. If the court were to hold that Tanvir cannot sue for damages, the best he could hope for is to have his name removed from the no-fly list, but that does not address the harm he experienced during the years it was there.

The court will hear oral arguments on the case in March 2020.