Supreme Court to decide if prison officials can be sued over inmates' religious rights

Image credit: Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

20% left coverage15% right coverage

On Monday, June 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to review a case involving Damon Landor, a Rastafarian inmate from Louisiana who was forcibly shaved while incarcerated. Landor initiated legal action after lower courts rejected his claim for monetary compensation against prison officials, based on a federal statute protecting religious exercise rights within institutional settings.

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

Landor served a nearly five-month drug-related sentence at Raymond Laborde Correctional Center in 2020, where he was handcuffed and shaved bald despite presenting a prior court ruling allowing Rastafarian hair accommodation. Landor’s lawyer Zachary Tripp cited a 2020 Supreme Court decision allowing damages claims under a similar federal law, and Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued denying damages would “undermine that important purpose.”

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in its next term starting October 2025 and the ruling may affect prison officials’ legal accountability for inmates’ religious rights.

Discover reporting you’re not seeing from biased, mainstream media outlets.

Using our real-time Media Miss™ tool powered by Ground News, we spotlight stories that right-leaning and left-leaning news outlets aren’t covering to bring you a complete picture of the news.

Learn more about how Media Miss™ works.

Media Landscape

Click on bars to see headlines

83 total sources

Key points from the Left

The Supreme Court will review a damages claim from Damon Landor, a Rastafarian whose dreadlocks were cut by Louisiana prison officials against his wishes, as part of a religious rights case.
Landor had kept a religious vow not to cut his hair for almost 20 years when the incident occurred in 2020.
Louisiana Attorney General Elizabeth Murrill acknowledged that the prison system has changed its grooming policy to prevent similar incidents but disputes Landor's right to seek monetary damages under federal law.
The court plans to hear arguments and issue a ruling during its term, which begins in October 2025 and ends in June 2026.

Report an issue with this summary

Key points from the Center

On June 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to review a case involving Damon Landor, a Rastafarian inmate from Louisiana who was forcibly shaved while incarcerated.
Landor initiated legal action after lower courts rejected his claim for monetary compensation against prison officials, based on a federal statute protecting religious exercise rights within institutional settings.
Landor served nearly a five-month drug-related sentence at Raymond Laborde Correctional Center in 2020, where he was handcuffed and shaved bald despite presenting a prior court ruling allowing Rastafarian hair accommodation.
Landor's lawyer Zachary Tripp cited a 2020 Supreme Court decision allowing damages claims under a similar federal law, and Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued denying damages would "undermine that important purpose."
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in its next term starting October 2025 and the ruling may affect prison officials' legal accountability for inmates' religious rights.

Report an issue with this summary

See Hide headlines from Center sources 44 sources

Key points from the Right

The Supreme Court will review a religious rights case involving Damon Landor, who alleges his dreadlocks were shaved in violation of his Rastafarian beliefs.
Landor claims that his rights were violated under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA, after officials shaved his hair.
The 5th Circuit Court ruled that Landor could not seek damages against individual officials under RLUIPA's provisions.
Louisiana officials have amended their prison grooming policy to ensure better treatment of inmates and condemned Landor's allegations as harmful to religious freedom.

Report an issue with this summary