Harvey Leroy Sossamon, Iii, Petitioner v. Texas et al. (563 U.S. 277)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided April 20, 2011 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 563 U.S. 277 · 131 S. Ct. 1651
- Decided
- April 20, 2011
- Term
- October Term 2010
- Vote
- 6–2
- Majority author
- Justice Thomas
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents the question whether the States, by accepting federal funds, consent to waive their sovereign immunity to suits for money damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 114 Stat. 803, 42 U. S. C. § 2000cc et seq. We hold that they do not. Sovereign immunity therefore bars this suit for damages against the State of Texas. I A RLUIPA is Congress’ second attempt to accord heightened statutory protection to religious exercise in the wake of this Court’s decision in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872 (1990). Congress first enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq., with which it intended to “restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205 (1972) ... in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened.” § 2000bb(b)(1). See generally Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Unido, do Vegetal, 546 U. S. 418, 424 (2006). We held RFRA unconstitutional as applied to state and local governments because it exceeded Congress’ power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. See City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507 (1997). Congress responded by enacting RLUIPA pursuant to its…
Excerpt of a 25,392-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.