The Supreme Court, yesterday, in Sossamon v. Texas held that prisoners are not entitled to monetary damages in litigation under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA).

In 1993 Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to provide “heightened statutory protection to religious exercise.” The Supreme Court found the act violated the Fourteenth Amendment in City of Boerne v. Flores. Congress then passed the RLUIPA based on the Spending Clause. No one questions the validity of the RLUIPA. It calls for suits and specifically for those brought by citizens against the states for violations of the act. The Act prohibits governmental bodies from imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise in institutions or in land use policy.

Harvey Leroy Sossamon III brought suit against the State of Texas claiming that prisoners confined to their cells were denied their right to attend religious services and that the chapel was not available for religious services.

States have sovereign immunity against suit and unless the states waive the immunity the Federal government cannot authorized the bringing of a suit against a state or a state created governmental body or institution. Under the Spending Clause states can be required to waive their sovereign immunity in order to receive Federal funding.

The only question in Sossamon is the extent of the waiver required by the act. Texas argued that the waiver extends only to equitable damages while Sossamon argued that the trial court could grant monetary damages, also.

The Supreme Court sided with the lower courts and the State of Texas. It ruled that the trial court could only grant equitable damages such as injunctions. The act calls for the awarding of “appropriate relief.” The majority opinion written by Justice Thomas pointed out that waivers must be strictly construed and the right to obtain monetary awards can only be awarded if their is a express and unequivocal waiver. ¹ Not believing that accepting “appropriate relief” is an express and unequivocal agreement to pay monetary damages the Supreme Court found that courts trying cases brought under the act cannot award monetary damages.