| ▲ | hn_acker 6 hours ago | |
So far, the three top-level comments by Georgelemental, rayiner, and torstenvl are all ignoring that the very definition of "government" as used in the relevant law [1] explicitly includes individual government officials [2]: > (4)Government > The term “government”— > (A)means— > (i)a State, county, municipality, or other governmental entity created under the authority of a State; > (ii)any branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official of an entity listed in clause (i); and > (iii)any other person acting under color of State law; and > (B)for the purposes of sections 2000cc–2(b) and 2000cc–3 of this title, includes the United States, a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official of the United States, and any other person acting under color of Federal law. The section of the statute that defines judicial relief broadly provides [3]: > (a)Cause of action > A person may assert a violation of this chapter as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution. If a violation by an individual government official counts as a violation by a "government", how could standing to obtain relief against a "government" not imply standing to obtain relief against the very individual government officials who committed the violation? Have the state officials not consented to receiving federal money through their wages? Nowhere in 42 U.S. Code § 2000cc through 42 U.S. Code § 2000cc-5 is there a mention of consent to be sued, and I could say that the prison guards consented to be sued by choosing employment at a prison that receives federal money! When a state "legalizes" marijuana, any state university receiving federal money must still ban students and staff from smoking marijuana. TFA explicitly mentions Tanzin v. Tanvir, the Supreme Court case regarding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which also defines "government" as including individual government officials. In Tanvir, Justice Thomas wrote the opinion (joined by all participating justices) ending with [4]: > We conclude that RFRA’s express remedies provision permits litigants, when appropriate, to obtain money damages against federal officials in their individual capacities. In Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, Justices Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh now go the opposite way by ignoring the very sections of the statute that provide relief "against federal officials in their individual capacities". All six justices in the majority, including Justice Barrett, have chosen to "create a new policy-based presumption against damages against individual officials" even though five of them previously were "not at liberty to do so" [4]. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000cc [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000cc-5 | ||