This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case concerns whether Texas, by accepting federal funds, waived its sovereign immunity under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and whether damages are an appropriate form of relief.
Background and question before the Court
According to Petitioner (Kevin K. Russell), according to Petitioner (Kevin K. Russell), petitioner asks whether the “appropriate relief” contemplated by RLUIPA includes monetary damages.
What each side argues
Petitioner
According to Petitioner (Kevin K. Russell), according to Petitioner (Kevin K. Russell), petitioner argues that by accepting federal funds, Texas consented to suit under RLUIPA and that appropriate relief should include damages.
According to Ms. Harrington, amicus counsel supports the view that the State’s acceptance of federal funds constitutes a voluntary waiver of sovereign immunity.
Respondent
According to Mr. Ho, respondent contends that the term “appropriate relief” is ambiguous and does not necessarily include damages.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Ginsburg asked what relief would be available if a federal penal institution denied religious practices protected by RFRA.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg raised the practical problem of states releasing or transferring prisoners to avoid liability, suggesting that damages might be necessary to ensure compliance.
According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor questioned the inducement for prisons to comply, noting allegations that some wait until the eve of trial after extensive discovery and harm before capitulating.
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer noted that some cases interpret “appropriate relief” to include damages while others do not.
Justice Kennedy asked whether the Spending Clause creates a contract‑like protection that lessens the need for a strict construction of waivers of immunity.
Justice Scalia referenced the case Barnes in asking whether the issue had been contested there.
- [1] 65c0307ab5ffe7ea2466-r1-319289d27b2a0a54.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 65c0307ab5ffe7ea2466-r1-319289d27b2a0a54.pdf, p. 38
- [3] 65c0307ab5ffe7ea2466-r1-319289d27b2a0a54.pdf, p. 40
- [4] 65c0307ab5ffe7ea2466-r1-319289d27b2a0a54.pdf, p. 41
- [5] 65c0307ab5ffe7ea2466-r1-319289d27b2a0a54.pdf, p. 43
- [6] 65c0307ab5ffe7ea2466-r1-319289d27b2a0a54.pdf, p. 46
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 65c0307ab5ffe7ea2466-r1-319289d27b2a0a54.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.