SCOTUS Adds Teeth to Civil Rights Lawsuits

Unanimous decision in Tanzin v. Tanvir allows individuals to seek damages when government thugs violate their rights.

Context

Although the Westfall Act of 1988 foreclosed Common Law claims for damages against federal officials (28 U. S. C. §2679), it left open claims for constitutional violations and certain statutory violations (§§2679(b)(2)(A)–(B)). Using what redress remains, freedom-enlightened Americans have long invoked 42 U.S.C. §1983 (Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights), 18 U.S.C. §241 (Conspiracy Against Rights), and 18 U.S.C. §242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law) to endeavor to obtain justice when public servants exceed- as they often do- the authorities delegated to them by the People via the Constitution. However, when such lawsuits are brought, public servants and their agents who commit Civil Rights violations have always argued that they, being government employees, are above the law. Having, decades ago, adopted an absurd line of thinking completely contrary to the Common Law principles that apply to everyone else, they contend that they have immunity from having to pay for the harms caused by their zealous ambitions to gain more power. But in December of 2020- as governors and county officials were committing egregious Civil Rights violations with unconstitutional “Shelter In Place”, masking, and “Social Distancing” orders, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the right of victims of government thuggery to receive compensatory damages.

Baiting The Prey

The question of monetary damages for Civil Rights violations came before the Supreme Court by way of Tanzin v. Tanvir. As court documents reveal, Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Injustice (aka “FBI”) approached Muhammad Tanvir at his work in 2007, questioning him about an acquaintance. Jameel Algibhah, and Naveed Shinwari were also solicited. All three men, being Muslim immigrants, were enticed to spy upon members of their communities. The FBI agents coerced the men with promises of financial assistance, and threatened them with deportation or arrest if they did not participate in their scheme. Harassment of Tanvir, for example, included Special Agent Tanzin repeatedly calling and approaching him at his work place, detaining him at JFK airport for five hours, confiscating his passport for six months, and threatening him with deportation. Tanvir was never charged with a crime nor presented with evidence suggesting that he was suspected of committing a crime.

Trapping The Prey

When the plaintiffs didn’t buckle under the harassment, the FBI, mimicking the practices of the Department of Homeland Security’s Transportation Security Administration, added the men to the No Fly List¹, despite the fact that they didn’t pose, or had ever posed, a threat to aviation safety. Any person placed on the No Fly List is barred from boarding a plane that starts in, ends in, or flies over the United States. So, for three years, the men were unable to fly to visit family or to travel for work.

Striking Back

Tanvir, Algibhah, and Shinwari brought suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the following FBI agents under 42 U.S.C. 2000bb- the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”)²:

• FNU TANZIN, Special Agent

• SANYA GARCIA, Special Agent

• JOHN LNU, Special Agent

• FRANCISCO ARTUSA, Special Agent

• JOHN C. HARLEY III, Special Agent

• STEVEN LNU, Special Agent

• MICHAEL LNU, Special Agent

• GREGG GROSSOEHMIG, Special Agent

• WEYSAN DUN, Special Agent in Charge

• JAMES C. LANGENBERG, Assistant Special Agent in Charge

The three men sought injunctive relief against the agents in their official capacities and monetary damages against the agents in their individual capacities, claiming that the agents’ retaliation caused emotional distress, reputational harm, and economic loss. For example, one of the plaintiffs had to quit his job as a long‐haul trucker because the job required him to fly home after completing his route, while another had to decline a job in Florida because he was prevented from flying. The District Court, however, ruled, in error, that RFRA doesn’t allow monetary relief, and dismissed their individual-capacity claims. Tanvir et al. then, in 2016, escalated the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which reversed the decision on May 2, 2018, holding that “RFRA’s express remedies provision permits litigants, when appropriate, to obtain money damages against federal officials in their individual capacities.” FBI Special Agent Tanzin then petitioned the Supreme Court to answer this question:

Are monetary damages appropriate relief for a person whose religious exercise has been burdened by a federal official in violation of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act?

The Historic Decision

Upon unanimous agreement of eight justices (Barrett didn’t participate), Associate Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the historic opinion. Most notably, Justice Thomas stated the following:

“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.”

“In the context of suits against Government officials, damages have long been awarded as appropriate relief. In the early Republic, ‘an array of writs...allowed individuals to test the legality of government conduct by filing suit against government officials’ for money damages ‘payable by the officer.’”

“Not only does the term ‘government’ encompass officials, it also authorizes suits against ‘other person[s] acting under color of law.’...The right to obtain relief against ‘a person’ cannot be squared with the Government’s reading that relief must always run against the United States. Moreover, the use of the phrase ‘official (or other person...)’ underscores that ‘official[s]’ are treated like ‘person[s].’ In other words, the parenthetical clarifies that ‘a government’ includes both individuals who are officials acting under color of law and other, additional individuals who are non-officials acting under color of law. Here, respondents sued the former.”

“...RFRA’s use of the phrase ‘persons acting under color of law’,... has long been interpreted by this Court in the 42 U. S. C. §1983 context to permit suits against officials in their individual capacities.

“The Government [FBI] also posits that we should be wary of damages against government officials because these awards could raise separation-of-powers concerns. But this exact remedy has coexisted with our constitutional system since the dawn of the Republic.”

Great Ramifications

Passage To Liberty is spearheading the effort to sue James R. Williams, Sara H. Cody, Jeffrey V. Smith and other County officials for Civil Rights and privacy violations under RFRA, 42 U.S.C. §1983, and 18 U.S.C. §241 and §242 (See previous article on Substack). This timely decision by SCOTUS means monetary damages for the victims of their constitutional violations are no longer out of reach.

If you would like to participate in the Civil Rights lawsuit, and/or if there is any way you can help fund this effort, please send an email to help@passagetoliberty.com. This project requires a tremendous amount of hours and resources to bring to fruition. If all of Passage To Liberties subscribers become paid subscribers at just $7/month, it would go a long way toward sustaining this endeavor!

Yours in Liberty,

PTL

Prepare for the collapse. Join the Private Trading Association at Passage To Liberty.

Watch and listen to more webcasts by Passage To Liberty on Rumble.

1. As witnessed by the plaintiffs, the secrecy around the “No Fly List” is characteristic of lists developed by totalitarian regimes. There is very little public information about its size, the criteria for inclusion, the standards for “derogatory information,” or the adequacy of its procedural safeguards. According to Plaintiffs’ testimony, the list burgeoned during Obama’s reign from 3,400 people in 2009 to over 21,000 by February 2012.

2. RFRA is the very same act relied upon by the plaintiffs in Carmichael v Pompeo to compel corrupt officials in the United States Department of State to issue passports to Christian applicants who refused to provide Social Security Numbers (See forthcoming article by Passage To Liberty).