Tanvir v. Tanzin – Do It For The Caselaw

Holding: The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from damages in their personal capacities because the plaintiffs did not disclose their religious objections, and thus the agents could not have known their conduct violated RFRA.
Standard: Qualified Immunity
Vote: Panel Decision
Practical effect: Government agents are shielded from damages in RFRA claims involving the No Fly List if plaintiffs have not previously disclosed their religious objections to the agents.

The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a RFRA claim against FBI agents, holding that the agents were entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiffs failed to disclose their religious objections to serving as informants.

Background

Three practicing Muslim men alleged that FBI agents placed or retained them on the No Fly List as retaliation for refusing to serve as government informants in Muslim communities. The plaintiffs sought damages under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, claiming the agents substantially burdened their exercise of religion by conditioning removal from the list on actions violating their religious beliefs. The district court dismissed the complaint on qualified immunity grounds.

The court’s reasoning

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless a reasonable person would have understood that their conduct fell within a clearly established prohibition. In the RFRA context, this requires that the official had reason to know their conduct implicated the plaintiff’s religious beliefs. The complaint did not plausibly allege that the agents knew the plaintiffs’ objections were grounded in religious beliefs because the plaintiffs did not disclose these objections to the defendants.

We agree that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

What it means going forward

Government agents are shielded from damages in RFRA claims involving the No Fly List if plaintiffs have not previously disclosed their religious objections to the agents.