A legal expert declared another victory for religious liberty after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the three Muslim men that could benefit faith-based organizations and the greater Christian community.

As reported by The Christian Headlines, the justices of the Supreme Court made an 8-0 decision following the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which allows a person to sue or seek monetary damages when their religious liberty is violated. Under the act, lawsuits can be filed against government or federal officials given their individual capacities.

Senior counsel for First Liberty Institute Stephanie Taub calls the recent ruling as a "victory for religious liberty."

Taub told The Christian Headlines, "It's a victory for religious liberty, primarily because it will stand as a warning to federal officials that they have to be careful to respect religious freedom,"

"This decision held that federal officials can be held personally accountable when they knowingly violate clearly established religious liberty rights. So essentially, when we're talking about federal officials that egregiously violate the law to harm people of faith, then they can be on the hook for monetary damages."

The lawsuit, Tanzin v. Tanvir, centers on several Muslim men who were harassed by FBI and put on the No Fly List after refusing to become informants against their fellow Muslims.

Ramzi Kassem, Tanvir's lawyer who is also a law professor at the City University of New York said that his clients "lost precious years with loved ones, plus jobs and educational opportunities."

The placement of the three Muslim men on FBI's No Fly List was retaliatory of their refusal to become informants, but they sued for the reason that the federal agency's move cost them money in lost job opportunities, with the least being money wasted in airline tickets.

The Muslim men were able to file a lawsuit in the district court after the FBI took their name off the list. However, the district court dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the RFRA in 1993 does not permit for monetary relief.

However, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's prior decision and ruled out that the three Muslim men were owed money under the law.

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Second Circuit to side with the Muslims.

Justice Clarence Thomas, author of the case in the U.S. Supreme Court, wrote that monetary damages are "appropriate" and sometimes the "only form of relief" that can be used to remedy violations made against one's religious liberty.

Thomas wrote, "We conclude that RFRA's express remedies provision permits litigants, when appropriate, to obtain money damages against federal officials in their individual capacities."

"For certain injuries, such as respondents' wasted plane tickets, effective relief consists of damages, not an injunction,"

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty applauded the Supreme Court's decision.

Its senior counsel, Lori Windham said that "this is a good decision that makes it easier to hold the government accountable when it violates Americans' religious liberties."

She adds, "We're glad the Supreme Court unanimously emphasized that the government can't expect to be let off the hook by simply changing its tune at the last second."