US court rules against man whose dreadlocks were cut off in prison
Summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Rastafarian inmate whose dreadlocks were cut in prison cannot sue state prison officials for damages.
- While Louisiana acknowledged the treatment was "antithetical to religious freedom" and changed its policy, the court found federal law does not permit monetary damages against state officials in their individual capacity.
- The ruling was 6-3, with the three liberal justices dissenting, upholding a lower court's decision that denied the inmate the right to sue for damages.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against a devout Rastafarian inmate who sought damages after his knee-length dreadlocks were forcibly cut off in a Louisiana jail. The court's 6-3 decision on Tuesday means Damon Landor cannot sue state prison officials for monetary damages, despite the state acknowledging the guards' actions were wrong.
Landor, who had grown his hair for nearly two decades, was serving the final weeks of a five-month sentence for drug possession in 2020 when the incident occurred. He had presented prison guards with a court ruling from 2017 that supported Rastafarians' right to keep their dreadlocks based on religious beliefs. However, a guard reportedly discarded the document, and Landor was then handcuffed and had his head shaved.
Louisiana had acknowledged that the treatment of Landor was "antithetical to religious freedom" and subsequently amended its prison grooming policy. Yet, the state maintained that federal law does not allow for monetary damages against state officials when sued in an individual capacity. The Supreme Court agreed with this interpretation, siding with the state's position.
The three liberal justices on the court dissented from the majority opinion. An appeals court had previously condemned Landor's treatment as "egregious" but also concluded he was not eligible to sue individual prison officials for damages, a conclusion now upheld by the nation's highest court.
Antithetical to religious freedom
Originally published by The Punch. Summarized and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.