Brett Kavanaugh Questions Damages for Religious Freedom Violations in Landor v. Louisiana

Clarifying Damages in Religious Freedom Cases

• ❓ Justice Kavanaugh expressed difficulty with the clarity of obtaining damages in cases involving religious freedom violations, specifically in the context of the Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections case.
• ⚖️ He questioned how to address the need for appropriate relief without watering down existing precedent on damages.

Statutory Interpretation and Individual Capacity Actions

• 🏛️ The attorney argued that the statute, under judicial relief, allows individuals to assert violations and obtain appropriate relief against the government.
• 👤 The statute defines the government as an official or any other person acting under color of state law, which the attorney contended clearly indicates an individual capacity action.
• 📜 The attorney referenced Tanzan to support the argument that the statute provides a clear answer regarding individual capacity.

The Franklin Presumption and Availability of Remedies

• 💰 Kavanaugh raised the Franklin presumption, which applies when there's a cause of action against a non-sovereign, suggesting that damages are presumptively available unless Congress states otherwise.
• 📜 The attorney affirmed that this presumption taps into a deep tradition of individual capacity liability dating back to the early republic, emphasizing that damages are the primary purpose of such actions.
• 🚫 Without damages, the attorney argued, individual capacity actions become meaningless, as injunctive relief is already available in official capacities.

Ineffectiveness of Statute Without Damages

• 🛡️ The attorney contended that the statute fails to provide its promised protection in many cases if damages are not available, citing numerous