Quiz 106 What were the key facts of the 2020 Tanzin decision?

The Supreme Court’s Tanzin v. Tanvir decision is not one that is widely known.  But the potential impact of that decision is big given its holding.  (Don’t worry, we’ll cover that in a future Religion Law Quiz.)  What were the key facts of the Tanzin decision? 

 

(Scroll down for the answer)

 

Answer: Here’s how the Supreme Court summarized those facts:

 

Respondents Muhammad Tanvir, Jameel Algibhah, and Naveed Shinwari are practicing Muslims who claim that Federal Bureau of Investigation agents placed them on the No Fly List in retaliation for their refusal to act as informants against their religious communities. Respondents sued various agents in their official capacities, seeking removal from the No Fly List. They also sued the agents in their individual capacities for money damages. According to respondents, the retaliation cost them substantial sums of money: airline tickets wasted and income from job opportunities lost.

More than a year after respondents sued, the Department of Homeland Security informed them that they could now fly, thus mooting the claims for injunctive relief. The District Court then dismissed the individual-capacity claims for money damages, ruling that RFRA does not permit monetary relief.

Tanzin v. Tanvir, 141 S. Ct. 486, 489, 208 L. Ed. 2d 295 (2020). 

Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.

HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST

Welcome to another enlightening episode of the 'Religion Law Podcast', where your understanding of religious freedom and various religion law-related issues will be refined through an intriguing question-and-answer setup. Guiding you on this informative journey is none other than your host, Michael Fielding.

This episode unravels the complexities of Religion Law Quiz number 106, where we dissect the lesser-known but highly influential Supreme Court decision, Tansin v. Tanvir. The primary focus of our discussion revolves around enumerating and understanding the key facts of this case—a feat possible only if one is familiar with the actual verdict. But worry not, for today, these facts are laid bare for your perusal, quoted verbatim from the Supreme Court records.

In this riveting episode, you will learn about the implications of this case involving Muslims who were removed from the no-fly list, the district court's decision to dismiss their need for injunctive relief and monetary damages claims, further escalating this issue to appeal at the Supreme Court. This leads to the pivotal question: Can someone whose rights have been infringed under RIFRA sue for and obtain monetary relief?

Join us as we gear up to explore this issue and more in our upcoming quizzes. Remember, our quizzes serve educational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice. If you find our episode helpful, don’t hesitate to share it and leave a review. Till our next meeting, strive to be an influence for good!

Episode Transcript

(00:01):
Welcome to another episode of the Religion Law Podcast, where you learn about
religious freedom and other religion law-related topics through a short question-and-answer format.
I'm your host, Michael Fielding.
Let's see how you do on today's quiz.
Welcome to Religion Law Quiz number 106, numero ciento seis. face.

(00:24):
The Supreme Court's Tansin v. Tanvir decision is not one that is widely known,
but the potential impact of that decision is big given its holding.
The key question here for you today are what were the key facts in that case?
Well, unless you've read the decision, you don't know the answer.
So I'm just going to read it. And this comes from a quote from the Supreme Court.

(00:47):
And this is setting up what will be kind of the basis for some additional religion
law quizzes. Here's the quote.

(01:22):
According to respondents, the retaliation cost them substantial sums of money,
tickets wasted, and income from job opportunities lost.
More than a year after the respondents sued, the Department of Homeland Security
informed them that they can now fly, thus mooting the claims for injunctive relief.
The district court then dismissed the individual capacity claims for money damages,

(01:43):
ruling that RFRA does not permit monetary relief, close quote.
So those are the key facts of the Tanvir decision.
And the key point here is that this case, these Muslims were taken off the no-fly list.
And so the district court said, you don't need injunctive relief, you're free to fly.

(02:04):
And then the court dismissed the monetary damages claim.
And that was the issue that was going up to appeal at the Supreme Court,
i.e., if there's been a RIFRA violation, can the person whose rights have been
infringed, can they sue and get monetary relief?
That's going to be a couple of the key points that we're going to be addressing
in some upcoming quizzes.

(02:26):
That does it for today.
Thank you for listening to today's episode. Remember, religion law quizzes are
for educational purposes only and are not intended to be relied upon as legal advice.
If you have found this episode to be helpful, please share it and leave a review.
Until we meet again, keep being an influence for good.

(02:47):
Music.