WASHINGTON -- A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Muslim men who were placed on the government's no-fly list because they refused to serve as FBI informants can seek to hold federal agents financially liable.
The justices held that the men could sue the agents under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
"The question here is whether 'appropriate relief' includes claims for money damages against Government officials in their individual capacities. We hold that it does," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court.
The three foreign-born men claim in the lawsuit that their religious convictions led them to rebuff agents who wanted them to inform on people in their Muslim communities. "This is a clear prohibition in the Islamic faith," Ramzi Kassem, the men's lawyer, told the justices during arguments in October.
The men claim the agents then placed or kept them on the list of people prevented from flying because they were considered threats. They have since been removed from the no-fly list.
A trial court dismissed the suit once their names had been dropped from the list, but they argued that the retaliation they claimed "cost them substantial sums of money: airline tickets wasted and income from job opportunities lost," Thomas wrote. The federal appeals court in New York agreed with the men, and the high court affirmed that decision.
There's no guarantee the three will win their case or collect anything from the agents. Thomas noted that the agents can argue that they should be shielded by the doctrine of qualified immunity, which the court has said protects officials as long as their actions don't violate clearly established law or constitutional rights they should have known about.
Lori Windham, senior counsel at the public interest law firm the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said governments too often change policies to avoid court judgments. "We're glad the Supreme Court unanimously emphasized that the government can't expect to be let off the hook by simply changing its tune at the last second. This is a good decision that makes it easier to hold the government accountable when it violates Americans' religious liberties," Windham said.
In recent years, the court has ruled in favor of people and companies asserting claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or the Constitution's guarantee of religious liberty.
The decision was among four issued Thursday in cases argued in October -- all decided unanimously:
The court reinstated convictions for rape by an officer and two enlisted men, reversing a military court ruling that had thrown them out because too much time had elapsed. The Uniform Code of Military Justice has been changed so that there is no statute of limitations on rape charges.
The court also revived a provision of the Delaware Constitution, struck down by a lower court, that requires that appointments to the state's major courts reflect a partisan balance. The justices held that lawyer James Adams, a political independent who challenged the provision, didn't have legal standing to do so because he had not shown that at the time he brought his lawsuit that he was "able and ready" to apply to be a judge.
The justices also reversed lower-court decisions that had prevented an Arkansas pharmacy law passed in 2015 from taking effect. The law, Act 900, was enacted to ensure that pharmacies are fully reimbursed for the cost of drugs they dispense.
Information for this article was contributed by Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press.