The Supreme Court has released its decision in Sossamon v. Texas. By a 6-2 vote (Justice Kagan did not participate), the court ruled that the State of Texas is not liable for monetary damages after violating the religious freedom rights of inmates under RLUIPA. At issue was whether states waive their sovereign immunity under that law by accepting federal funds. Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas argued (pdf) that because the law only mentions "appropriate remedies", without being more specific, RLUIPA does not open states to monetary damage claims.
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Breyer, dissented, noting that injunctive relief – making the state fix a flawed policy or practice – may do little to help the victim whose fundamental rights were violated in the first place, and offers states little incentive to ensure they safeguard those rights:
The Court’s reading…severely undermines Congress’ unmistakably stated intent in passing the statute: to afford “broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of [the statute] and the Constitution.” I find it improbable that, in light of this express statutory purpose and the history of “long-running congressional efforts to accord religious exercise heightened protection from government-imposed burdens,” state officials would read RLUIPA’s relief provision in the same limited manner the majority does.
…
It is difficult to believe that Congress would have devoted such care and effort to establishing significant statutory protections for religious exercise and specifically extended those protections to persons in state institutions, yet withheld from plaintiffs a crucial tool for securing the rights the statute guarantees. By depriving prisoners of a damages remedy for violations of their statutory rights, the majority ensures that plaintiffs suing state defendants under RLUIPA will be forced to seek enforcement of those rights with one hand tied behind their backs.Most obviously, the majority’s categorical denial of monetary relief means that a plaintiff who prevails on the merits of his claim that a State has substantially burdened his religious exercise will often be denied redress for the injury he has suffered… Injunctive relief from a federal court may address a violation going forward, but this fact will be of cold comfort to the victims of serious, non- recurring violations for which equitable relief may be inappropriate.
The Baptist Joint Committee filed an amicus brief with the court urging a different decision, arguing that injunctive relief is not enough to fulfill the mission of RLUIPA.
The fundamental problem is that it is all too easy for prison officials to moot prisoners’ claims for injunctive relief and, if no damages are available, avoid judicial scrutiny of misconduct. Only a claim for damages can save a cause from mootness.
As the BJC argued, and Justice Sotomayor indicated in dissent, this ruling in many ways leaves RLUIPA toothless when it comes to protecting the rights of inmates. In light of the decision, will Congress be motivated to update the law and clarify the "appropriate relief" language the majority questioned?
