Legal Opinion

Sossamon v. Texas

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided April 20, 2011No. 08-1438Published

1Dissent 1

SEPARATE OPINION

2Dissent · SotomayorJustice Sotomayor

The Court holds that the term “appropriate relief’ is too ambiguous to provide States with clear notice that they will be liable for monetary damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 114 Stat. 803, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. I disagree. No one disputes that, in accepting federal funds, the States consent to suit for violations of RLUIPA’s substantive provisions; the only question is what relief is available to plaintiffs asserting injury from such violations. That monetary damages are “appropriate relief’ is, in my view,…

3Cases cited40 opinions

  1. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of NarcoticsSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Edelman v. JordanSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. Bell v. HoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  4. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  5. Meachum v. FanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976

35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API