The U.S. Supreme Court case Tanzin v. Tanvir (2020) involved three Muslim men who claimed that FBI agents placed them on the No-Fly List as retaliation for their refusal to act as informants against their religious community, which they argued was a violation of their First Amendment rights. The men sought damages under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which prohibits government from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion unless it is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is done in the least restrictive way possible. The question before the court was whether RFRA allowed lawsuits seeking money damages against individual federal employees. In an unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that individuals may seek monetary damages from federal officials when their religious freedom has been violated by those officials under RFRA. This ruling affirmed that if Congress wants to limit remedies available under any law, it must do so explicitly - something it did not do with RFRA.

There was no dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court case Tanzin v. Tanvir, 2020. The court unanimously ruled that individuals can seek monetary damages from federal officials who violate their religious freedom rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). This decision upheld a lawsuit brought by three Muslim men who claimed they were placed on a No-Fly list as retaliation for refusing to act as FBI informants against their communities. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion stating that "damages claims are appropriate" under RFRA because it is designed to deter future violations and allow victims of religious discrimination to be compensated for any harm suffered.