U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Prisoner’s Religious Rights Lawsuit
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against a Louisiana man who claimed prison officials violated his religious beliefs by forcibly shaving his hair while he was incarcerated. In a 6-3 decision, the court determined that federal law does not allow inmates to pursue monetary damages against individual prison employees in such cases.
Damon Landor, a follower of the Rastafari faith, maintained long dreadlocks for nearly two decades because his religion requires uncut hair. He argued that prison guards ignored existing legal protections and forcibly shaved his head during a transfer to a Louisiana correctional facility in 2020.
Court Says Federal Law Does Not Permit Damages Against Individual Guards
The case centered on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a law intended to protect religious freedoms for people in institutions such as prisons. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch stated that the statute applies to government entities receiving federal funding and does not create personal financial liability for individual employees unless they expressly agree to it.
As a result, the court upheld lower court decisions that had dismissed Landor’s lawsuit seeking compensation from prison officials.
Incident Stemmed From 2020 Prison Transfer
According to court records, Landor was transferred to Raymond Laborde Correctional Center near the end of a five-month sentence. He reportedly informed officials that previous court rulings had recognized the rights of Rastafarian inmates to keep their hair. Despite presenting documentation, he alleged that guards handcuffed him to a chair and shaved his head.
Landor later filed suit, but both a federal district court and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that RLUIPA does not authorize damages claims against individual officers.
Dissent Warns Prisoners May Lack Protection
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, disagreed with the majority opinion. The dissent argued that treating the statute as a contractual agreement rather than a law could leave inmates without effective remedies when their religious rights are violated.
The ruling marks another significant decision involving religious liberty and the rights of incarcerated individuals in the United States.
