WASHINGON (ABP) – The Supreme Court’s justices struggled Nov. 2 to divine whether a federal statute allows a prisoner to collect monetary damages when the state incarcerating him violates his religious freedom.
From left to right, Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty General Counsel Holly Hollman, Executive Director Brent Walker and Staff Counsel Jamie Gibson following Nov. 2 oral arguments at the Supreme Court in Sossamon v. Texas. The group joind a friend-of-the-court brief in the case urging the high court to allow a prisoner to collect monetary damages from the state for violations of his religious freedom. (BJC photo)
|
If the justices rule in the state’s favor in Sossamon v. Texas (No. 08-1438), some religious-freedom activists argue, it could significantly weaken the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
In oral arguments for the case, the justices attempted to determine whether the law allows inmate Harvey Leroy Sossaman to win compensatory damages from Texas officials for violations of his religious freedom.
RLUIPA, passed in 2000 with a broad array of supporters in religious communities, uses Congress’ powers under the Constitution’s Spending Clause to condition the granting of federal prison funds on states’ willingness to allow inmates to sue to vindicate their religious rights. It also allows suits for state and local infringements on other persons institutionalized by the state — such as patients at mental-health facilities or state-run nursing homes — and churches and other religious groups whose freedom has been infringed by land-use laws or decisions.
But while the State of Texas and 5th Circuit Court of Appeals conceded that Sossamon was entitled to injunctive relief — a remedy that bars the state from further violations of Sossamon’s religious freedom — the law was ambiguous regarding monetary damages.
The key phrase in the law – “appropriate relief” – is at question in the case. State and federal officials generally are immune from punitive damages in civil suits for decisions rendered in good faith in the course of their official duties.
The justices seemed concerned with whether remedies would have to include compensatory damage for the relief to be appropriate.
“What do you do with the practical problem that's been brought up that if a state is sued, it can release the prisoner, it can transfer the prisoner, and then no relief is appropriate? That the only way that the state is going to take its obligation seriously is if it's exposed to compensatory damages?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked James Ho, arguing Texas’ case.
“If a prisoner is transferred, released, or the state simply changes its mind and gives up and provides the accommodation, in all those situations, the prisoner is no longer suffering from the complaint of condition,” Ho responded.
A friend-of-the-court brief joined by the Baptist Joint Committee, the American Jewish Committee and other religious-liberty groups argued, however, that the state would have little incentive to honor prisoners’ religious freedom without the threat of monetary damages.
“RLUIPA, as we explain … was prompted by evidence that prisons throughout the country were placing unjustified restrictions on religious exercise. Congress needed a strong remedy. And … damages are a critical part of the remedy that Congress crafted,” the brief said. “In many cases where prisons can easily moot claims for injunctive relief, damages are the only effective remedy.”
-30-
Robert Marus is managing editor and Washington bureau chief for Associated Baptist Press.
Read more: