> Held: RFRA’s express remedies provision permits litigants, when appro-
priate, to obtain money damages against federal officials in their indi-
vidual capacities. Pp. 3–9.
RFRA is an Act of Congress. Looking just the quote above, what SCOTUS found isn't a constitutional right but a statutory right, which means the statue can be amended or repealed, for example, and also that the statutory right is limited to whatever the statute says (or SCOTUS read in it). Without reading the rest of the opinion or the Act itself, I am probably justified in imagining that the right doesn't extend to violations of any constitutional rights so much as to violations of constitutional rights relevant to "religious freedom", which is mainly 1st Amendment rights, and maybe some others. I wonder, for example, whether RFRA would protect one's right to refuse a mandatory vaccine for religious reasons -- it might, though I don't have time to go read it (and related case-law) and find out (plus IANAL).
cryptonector|3 years ago
RFRA is an Act of Congress. Looking just the quote above, what SCOTUS found isn't a constitutional right but a statutory right, which means the statue can be amended or repealed, for example, and also that the statutory right is limited to whatever the statute says (or SCOTUS read in it). Without reading the rest of the opinion or the Act itself, I am probably justified in imagining that the right doesn't extend to violations of any constitutional rights so much as to violations of constitutional rights relevant to "religious freedom", which is mainly 1st Amendment rights, and maybe some others. I wonder, for example, whether RFRA would protect one's right to refuse a mandatory vaccine for religious reasons -- it might, though I don't have time to go read it (and related case-law) and find out (plus IANAL).
JumpCrisscross|3 years ago
This…has always been the case? It’s a raison d’être for SCOTUS.
ldiracdelta|3 years ago