Supreme Court rules ex-inmate can't sue prison officials for shaving dreadlocks
Summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
- The Supreme Court rejected an ex-inmate's lawsuit against prison officials for shaving his dreadlocks against his religious beliefs.
- The court ruled 6-3, with liberal justices dissenting, that the inmate lacked a federal cause of action under RLUIPA.
- The decision upholds a lower court ruling and represents a setback for religious freedom claims in prisons.
The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a former Louisiana inmate the right to sue state prison officials after they forcibly shaved his dreadlocks, violating his deeply held Rastafarian religious beliefs. The high court's 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, sided with the prison officials.
Damon Landor, a devout Rastafarian, sought legal recourse under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). He argued that prison guards at the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center violated his religious rights by shaving his head during the final three weeks of his sentence. Despite providing proof of his religious accommodations and citing a previous court ruling that supported Rastafarians' right to keep their hair, Landor's pleas were ignored.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, stated that Landor "does not have a federal RLUIPA cause of action against the officers." The ruling hinges on the interpretation of the Spending Clause, suggesting Congress cannot impose liability on officials without their consent, which the court found lacking in this case. This decision effectively upholds the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit's dismissal of Landor's claims.
This ruling marks a significant loss for plaintiffs asserting religious rights violations within correctional facilities. It contrasts with recent Supreme Court decisions that have often favored religious parties. Landor's case arose despite lower courts acknowledging his mistreatment, highlighting a complex legal battle over religious freedom and institutional policies.
does not have a federal RLUIPA cause of action against the officers. Under the Spending Clause, Congress lacks regulatory authority to impose liability on them directly and must depend instead on consent. And because they never agreed to answer suits like this one, 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.
Originally published by CBS News. Summarized and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.