Damon Landor, a devout Rastafarian, understood the threat that prisons and jails posed to his hair — and his faith.
Hair is considered sacred in Rastafari, and cutting it violates a religious commitment. Twice Louisiana prison employees had respected Landor’s religious rights and left his dreadlocks alone. But then, in 2020, with three weeks left in Landor’s five-month sentence on a drug-possession charge, he was transferred to a third prison.
Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.
Point phone camera here
At intake, he showed a guard a printed copy of a court ruling that protected his right to keep his hair. But the guard — as well as the warden — were unmoved. Two officers dragged Landor into another room, handcuffed him to a chair, held him down and then shaved his head. One of them threw the ruling into the trash.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that prison and jail staff cannot be sued individually for financial damages when they violate incarcerated people’s religious rights.
In its 6-3 ruling, the court was divided along ideological lines.
The conservative majority ruled against Landor in a departure from its record of mostly deciding in favor of religious protections. Many of the earlier cases centered on claims of discrimination against Christians, not members of minority sects like Rastafari.
Landor sued under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, known as RLUIPA, a law designed to protect incarcerated people.
Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that while jail and prison employees need to follow the law, the statute does not allow incarcerated people to sue jail staff personally for financial damages. The case could move forward in federal court, Gorsuch wrote, only if the jail employees consented to being sued under RLUIPA. Gorsuch’s decision upheld rulings by lower courts.
“Individuals may not be held liable in their personal capacities under a Spending Clause statute unless those individuals have voluntarily and knowingly consented to answer lawsuits under the statute; because the individual defendants in this case did not voluntarily and knowingly consent to face RLUIPA liability in an agreement with the federal government, Mr. Landor’s case cannot proceed against them,” Gorsuch wrote.
“Mr. Landor’s case cannot proceed against them any more than a breach of contract action might proceed against a defendant who never formed a contract,” Gorsuch added.
In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the majority opinion “magically transforms a federal statute into an invitation to be accepted or declined, deemed binding only if each particular defendant has explicitly agreed to be penalized.”
Because of the ruling, she wrote, “encroachments on prisoners’ statutory rights are likely to happen with fair frequency, as state-empowered prison officials will have little incentive to abide by federal law, even if it is handed to them on a piece of paper.”
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, a Republican, praised the ruling but condemned Landor’s treatment.
“Religious liberty is deeply important,” Murrill said in a statement, “and Louisiana has laws on the books protecting it.”
Round out your reading
- With more prison space than prisoners, correctional facilities are shutting down.
- ‘Game changer’: New cancer treatment turns major surgery into an outpatient procedure.
- Viewers overwhelmingly support ‘The View’s’ fight against the FCC. Will that matter?
- Why an ICE shooting in Houston isn’t leading to mass protests.
- Milwaukee detective is the latest officer charged with misusing Flock cameras.
![[your]NEWS logo](https://groundnews.b-cdn.net/interests/fb6dc495f74049f513563c33352175eaa0ecd509.jpg)
