25 F.4th 805
10th Cir.2022Background
- Ahmad Ajaj, a federal inmate at ADX serving a long sentence, sued BOP and individual officials under RFRA and the First Amendment for religious accommodations: medication scheduling for Ramadan/Sunnah fasts, access to halal food, access to an imam, and the ability to participate in five daily group prayers.
- After Ajaj sued over Ramadan medication scheduling, ADX temporarily changed its policy; the district court dismissed the Ramadan-medication claim as moot but Ajaj amended and added defendants and claims (injunctive relief against BOP; damages against officials in their individual capacities).
- Ajaj was transferred (first to USP Terre Haute’s Life Connections Program (LCP), then later to other facilities). The district court dismissed his group-prayer claim as moot based on a finding that LCP permitted him to pray communally five times daily; the court also dismissed all individual-capacity RFRA damages claims, concluding RFRA did not authorize money damages.
- After trial the district court enjoined discontinuing a halal diet at Terre Haute but found no substantial burden regarding access to an imam; Ajaj moved to revive the group-prayer claim after another transfer but the district court denied revival when the receiving facility allowed group prayer.
- On appeal the Tenth Circuit reversed the mootness dismissal of the group-prayer claim (the district court’s factual finding that Ajaj could pray five times daily was clearly erroneous) and reversed the dismissal of individual-capacity RFRA damages claims in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Tanzin v. Tanvir, remanding for further proceedings on qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of group-prayer claim after transfer to LCP | Ajaj: transfer did not resolve claim because he could not reliably pray with others five times daily; transfer relief was temporary | BOP: LCP provided significant group-prayer opportunities (so claim was moot) | Reversed — dismissal was based on clear factual error; case not moot on record below |
| Availability of money damages under RFRA against officials in individual capacities | Ajaj: RFRA authorizes damages; thus individual-capacity claims viable | Defs: RFRA does not permit individual-capacity money damages (district court) | Reversed — Supreme Court in Tanzin confirms RFRA permits monetary relief; individual-capacity claims may proceed |
| Applicability of qualified-immunity defense to RFRA damages suits | Ajaj: qualified immunity should not apply to RFRA damages | Defs: qualified immunity shields officials unless they violated clearly established law | Court: Qualified immunity is available in RFRA individual-capacity suits; remanded for district court to decide entitlement |
Key Cases Cited
- Tanzin v. Tanvir, 141 S. Ct. 486 (2020) (RFRA authorizes money damages against federal officials)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (establishes qualified-immunity standard for government officials)
- City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) (limits RFRA’s application to state actors)
- Employment Div., Dep’t of Human Resources of Or. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (triggered congressional response that produced RFRA)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (mootness/standing principles and continuing injury analysis)
- Werner v. McCotter, 49 F.3d 1476 (10th Cir. 1995) (applied qualified immunity to RFRA-related claims)