Let’s get out of one thing first: Dance’s V on Thursday. The 8-0 judgment of the Supreme Court in Tanvir is certainly correct as a matter of law. The majority opinion of Judge Clarence Thomas was unanimous (Judge Amy Connie Barrett, who was late in court to hear the case, did not attend), which relied on a more direct reading of a federal religious freedom law. Danzin argues that federal officials may be held personally responsible if a person’s religious rights are violated – a verdict that benefits many religious freedom advocates with truly heartbreaking claims against government officials, including plaintiffs in this case. But it also provides a new weapon for conservative cultural warriors seeking broad exemptions from federal law. The underlying facts engrave for Dansin. Muslims argue that the FBI agencies put them on a no-fly list in retaliation for the plaintiffs’ refusal to act as informants against other members of their Muslim communities. One of the plaintiffs, Mohammad Tanveer, alleged that he could not see his sick mother in Pakistan and had to quit his job as a long-distance trucker because he could no longer fly home after a one-way delivery. The court ruling in Danzin is that these Muslim plaintiffs will be allowed to receive monetary compensation from FBI agents who allegedly violate their religious rights – agents will be able to escape liability due to a principle known as “competent immunity”. Harlow v. The Supreme Court held in Fitzgerald (1982) that the competent immunity theory states, “Government officials who perform prudent actions are generally protected from liability for civil damages because their conduct does not violate clearly established legal or constitutional rights. A reasonable person would have known. “Nevertheless, providing cash damages to Danz’s plaintiffs would help cure a terrible injustice, and there is a broader context to be wary of beyond the details of this particular case. In recent years, the court’s conservative majority has become increasingly interested in expanding the rights of religious conservatives to prosecute government officials, and some of the court’s recent results suggest that it would be illegal for such officials to make minor allegations against certain loyal persons. . For example, Masterpiece Cakeshop Vs. At the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) the court reprimanded a state civil rights commissioner who issued an objectively factual statement that “history and religious freedom have been used to justify all forms of discrimination.” So one implication of Danzin is that religious conservatives can now obtain monetary damages from federal officials for violations, until recently, the courts were considered completely harmless. Dancin’s policy implications, in other words, may provoke ambiguity among liberals and conservatives. Outside of the context of religious freedom, conservative judges are generally opposed to attempts to hold law enforcement officials personally responsible for their illegal activities. Meanwhile, the Liberals will undoubtedly sympathize with the Danzists. But the court’s ruling will empower religious conservatives to seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws and other policies that liberals want. Dance applies only to federal authorities, but other laws show that state officials can also be held accountable for violations of “religious freedom.” It is noteworthy that the rule announced in Tanzania only applies to federal officials. The case arises under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which allows a person with an illegal religious belief to “seek appropriate relief against a government.” However, as Judge Thomas explains, the term “government” is broadly and somewhat negatively defined to include “a branch, department, organization, tool, and official (or other person acting under the color of the law) of the United States.” Thus, as Thomas writes, the term “government” extends beyond the clear meaning of the term for the inclusion of officials. “So individual officials can be prosecuted directly and held personally liable. Boern v. States that states and state officials are not bound by the RFRA that the RFRA applies only to federal government – and that the explicit text of the law applies only to “US” officials. So the possession of Dance does not apply directly to state officials. Thomas’s comment takes considerable time to discuss the legal framework that allows civil rights plaintiffs to prosecute state officials who violate the Constitution – a structure that allows for monetary damages against those officials. The Conservative majority of the Supreme Court reads in great detail the provision of the Constitution that protects the “free practice” of religion. Therefore, if the court’s ever-expanding definition of what constitutes a violation of religious freedom is violated, federal and state officials will ultimately be subject to personal liability. The good news is that FBI agents and other law enforcement officials may think twice before committing violations similar to the allegations alleged by Dance’s plaintiffs. But government officials may be more cautious in enforcing civil rights and other laws against religious dissidents – because those officials could pay a personal price if they did so. Will you help keep Vox free for everyone? There is tremendous power in understanding. Vox answers your most important questions and gives you clear information that will help you understand the increasingly chaotic world. A financial contribution from Vox will enable us to deliver a continuing explanatory journal to the millions who depend on us. Donate to Vox today from Vox 3 for a small price.