Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled that prisoners who are denied religious freedom rights may not seek monetary damages from the state. The Sossamon decision seems surely destined to undermine the power of RLUIPA (the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act) in protecting the religious exercise of prisoners (the BJC expressed disappointment in the decision). How will we hold a state-run prison system accountable for having violated the rights of an inmate without the threat of financial penalty?
Despite that ruling, the 9th Circuit yesterday found the same principal is not at work in the area of RLUIPA dealing with local government's land-use policies and decisions. The court found that the City of Yuma is liable for monetary damages after violating the equal protection provision of RLUIPA when it required a church to obtain a conditional use permit that it would not have required for a non-religious organization.
Cities, Judge Kleinfeld writes, are different.
Sossamon v. Texas holds that states may not be held liable for monetary damages under RLUIPA because they have not waived sovereign immunity. Sossamon is grounded in the line of Eleventh Amendment authority requiring “clear expression” to abrogate the sovereign immunity of states from damages claims. The Eleventh Amendment requirement does not apply to municipalities. The City of Yuma, therefore, may be liable for monetary damages under RLUIPA…
