Congress has enacted two "sister" statutes to protect religious exercise: the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq., and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et. seq. In Tanzin v Tanvir, 592 US 43 (2020), this Court held that an individual may sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of RFRA, RLUIPA's relevant language is identical.

The question presented is:

1. Whether RLUIPA violations authorizes monetary damages against state officials in their individual capacities;

2. Whether claims for injunctive relief against prison official are moot when the plaintiff is transferred to a new facility governed by the same departmental policies?;

3. Whether claims for injunctive relief against officials sued in their official capacity become moot upon their departure from office? or does; it transfer to his successor since repetitive harm would evade review?

4. Whether a prisoner states a claim for injunctive relief under RLUIPA without identifying a specific written departmental policy.when the policy can be reasonably inferred from systematic application?; and,

5. Whether prison officials violated clearly established First Amendment free exercise rights by misdirecting a Muslim inmate's halal diet request and denying it based on commissary purchases that inmate averred he did not consume?

Whether RLUIPA authorizes monetary damages against state officials in their individual capacities and whether claims for injunctive relief become moot under various circumstances