U.S. Supreme Court Limits Prisoner Lawsuits Against Guards for Religious Liberty Violations
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections that individual prison guards cannot be sued for damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The case involved Damon Landor, a Rastafarian inmate in Louisiana whose dreadlocks were forcibly shaved by guards despite a prior court ruling protecting his religious practice. The majority held that only the prison system, not individual employees, waived sovereign immunity by accepting federal funds. Critics argue the ruling undermines accountability and religious freedom protections for minority faiths.
Cross-source coverage
Wire timeline
Supreme Court Loves Religious Freedom—Just Not for Rastafarians
The article reports on the U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections. Damon Landor, a Rastafarian prisoner, had his dreadlocks forcibly shaved by prison guards three weeks before his release, despite federal law (RLUIPA) protecting religious grooming. The majority ruled that correctional officers cannot be sued under RLUIPA unless they consent to be sued, effectively neutering the law's enforcement. The author argues the decision reflects a double standard in the court's religious freedom protections, favoring conservative Christian claims over minority faiths like Rastafarianism, and undermines civil rights protections for prisoners.
Article | The NationSupreme Court Rules Against Rastafarian Prisoner, Limits Religious Suits
The Nation reports on a 6-3 US Supreme Court ruling in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections. Damon Landor, a Rastafarian prisoner with three weeks left on his sentence, was forcibly shaved by guards despite federal protections under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The majority ruled that correctional officers cannot be sued under RLUIPA unless they consent to be sued, effectively neutering the law's enforcement. The author argues the conservative majority selectively protects religious freedom, favoring Christian conservative claims while ignoring violations of minority faiths like Rastafarianism. The case highlights ongoing tensions over civil rights protections, prison conditions, and congressional authority.
Article | The NationThe Supreme Court Loves Religious Freedom—Just Not for Rastafarians
The article reports on the U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, which involved Damon Landor, a Rastafarian prisoner whose dreadlocks were forcibly shaved three weeks before his release. Despite the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) protecting religious accommodations, the Court ruled that correctional officers cannot be sued under RLUIPA unless they consent to be sued. The author argues that the conservative majority violated Landor's constitutional rights and undermined civil rights protections, contrasting this with the Court's usual strong defense of religious freedom for conservative Christians. The ruling is portrayed as an assault on congressional authority and a double standard in religious liberty enforcement.
Article | The NationSupreme Court rules Rastafarian prisoner cannot sue guards who forcibly shaved his dreadlocks
The Economist reports that the US Supreme Court has ruled that Damon Landor, a Rastafarian prisoner in Louisiana, cannot sue prison guards who forcibly shaved his dreadlocks, which he had grown uncut for two decades in accordance with his religious Nazirite vow. The decision curtails plaintiffs' rights to damages, building on a trend of limiting lawsuits against state officials. Landor had presented a previous federal ruling (Ware v Louisiana Department of Corrections) that protected Rastafarians' right to keep locks, but guards ignored it, handcuffed him, and shaved his head. The Supreme Court's ruling effectively narrows the ability of prisoners to seek monetary compensation for religious rights violations under federal law.
Latest UpdatesSupreme Court Limits Ability to Sue Prison Guards for Religious Liberty Violations
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections that individual prison guards cannot be sued for damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) for violating an inmate's religious liberty. The case involved Damon Landor, a Rastafarian inmate whose dreadlocks were forcibly shaved by Louisiana prison guards despite a prior 5th Circuit ruling protecting his religious practice. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, argued that while the Louisiana Department of Corrections accepted federal funding and agreed to RLUIPA suits, individual guards did not personally agree to such lawsuits, thus shielding them from liability. The decision was criticized by the article's author as extending protection to government agents who violate rights, drawing parallels to qualified immunity and Bivens doctrines.
Reason.comSupreme Court Limits Lawsuits Against Prison Guards for Religious Liberty Violations Under RLUIPA
In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individual prison guards cannot be sued for damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The case involved Damon Landor, a Rastafarian inmate in Louisiana whose dreadlocks were forcibly shaved by guards despite a prior federal appeals court ruling that the prison's ban on dreadlocks violated RLUIPA. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch argued that only the prison system, not individual employees, agreed to waive sovereign immunity as a condition of accepting federal funds. The decision effectively shields guards from personal liability for religious liberty violations, drawing criticism from rights advocates who say it undermines accountability. The ruling expands the trend of limiting lawsuits against government agents.
Reason.com