U.S. Supreme Court docket
Rastafarian’s non secular freedom swimsuit in opposition to jail officers for slicing his hair wins Supreme Court docket evaluate
June 25, 2025, 9:22 am CDT
The U.S. Supreme Court docket agreed Monday to determine whether or not a Rastafarian with non secular objections to slicing his hair can search cash damages from Louisiana jail officers for strapping him down and shaving his head. (Picture from Shutterstock)
The U.S. Supreme Court docket agreed Monday to determine whether or not a Rastafarian with non secular objections to slicing his hair can search cash damages from Louisiana jail officers for strapping him down and shaving his head.
The plaintiff, Damon Landor, mentioned he’s entitled to sue jail officers of their particular person capacities beneath the Spiritual Land Use and Institutionalized Individuals Act, which protects non secular freedom in prisons and in land use. He mentioned officers on the Raymond Laborde Correctional Facility in Louisiana lower his hair whereas ignoring the courtroom determination that he carried establishing his proper to maintain his hair.
The fifth U.S. Circuit Court docket of Appeals at New Orleans dominated in opposition to Landor and denied rehearing in February 2024. A concurrence famous that jail officers “actually” threw into the trash can Landor’s fifth Circuit opinion holding that slicing Rastafarians’ hair violated the RLUIPA.
However the Supreme Court docket ought to resolve the conflict between two of its opinions, one involving the RLUIPA and one other involving the Spiritual Freedom Restoration Act—or the RFRA—the concurrence mentioned.
Each legal guidelines authorize courts to grant “acceptable reduction” for non secular liberty violations. Landor’s cert petition described the legislation that he used to sue as a “sister statute” to the RFRA.
However the Supreme Court docket has dominated that sovereign immunity protects states from cash damages beneath the RLUIPA whereas permitting damages claims by the RFRA in opposition to federal officers of their particular person capacities.
Landor argued that the RLUIPA’s promise is “empty” and not using a damages treatment.
“No reduction shouldn’t be ‘acceptable reduction,’” the cert petition argued.
SCOTUSblog, Bloomberg Regulation, Law360 and the New York Instances are among the many publications protecting the cert grant.
The case is Landor v. Louisiana Division of Corrections and Public Security.
Write a letter to the editor, share a narrative tip or replace, or report an error.
