Via Religion Clause, the judge who notably ruled Jose Padilla's suit against John Yoo can move forward included in that determination the RFRA and Free Exercise religion claims. Padilla argues that a memo written by the former Deputy AG resulted in him being tortured and denied basic religious freedoms while in U.S. custody. Judge Jeffrey White countered (pdf) Yoo's motion to dismiss these claims:
First, Yoo contends that Padilla fails to allege Yoo was personally involved in the acts that substantially burdened the free exercise of religion. This contention has been addressed in the causation argument attendant to the civil rights claim. Second, Yoo argues that RFRA does not create a cause of action against Yoo in his individual capacity and, even if such a cause of action were allowed under RFRA, Yoo would be entitled to qualified immunity because the right would not be clearly established under federal law. The Court finds that authority indicates that RFRA provides for a cause of action against a federal actor in his individual capacity and that this right was clearly established at the time of the conduct.
Yoo contends that the plain statutory text of RFRA does not provide for a cause of
action against a government employee in his or her individual capacity. Yoo contends that the phrase “appropriate relief against a government” indicates that Congress authorized only suitsagainst governmental entities, not individual government employees. However, the Court finds this argument unpersuasive as the statute defines “government” to include “official (orother person acting under color of law) of the United States.”
