November 12, 2025
Justices seem divided over whether or not federal legislation permits damages for spiritual rights violations by state jail officers.
On Nov. 10, the Supreme Courtroom appeared reluctant to permit an incarcerated Louisiana man to hunt financial damages from jail officers who forcibly lower his dreadlocks in violation of his spiritual beliefs, suggesting the justices could rule that Congress didn’t authorize such lawsuits below current legislation. The case facilities on Damon Landor, a religious Rastafarian who says his religion prohibits him from slicing his hair below the Nazarite vow.
In response to NBC Information, Landor, who had not lower his dreadlocks in almost 20 years earlier than getting into jail, claims his spiritual rights had been violated when officers at Raymond Laborde Correctional Heart shaved his head in 2020, regardless of his objections.
Landor’s attorneys argue that the Spiritual Land Use and Institutionalized Individuals Act (RLUIPA) permits for damages when spiritual freedoms are violated, citing a 2020 Supreme Courtroom ruling that discovered such reduction permissible below an analogous legislation, the Spiritual Freedom Restoration Act.
Nevertheless, throughout oral arguments, a number of conservative justices appeared unconvinced. Louisiana Solicitor Common Benjamin Aguinaga maintained that RLUIPA doesn’t authorize fits for damages towards state officers, noting the distinction between instances involving federal staff and people involving state-funded establishments.
Justice Neil Gorsuch emphasised the absence of clear legislative language supporting Landor’s declare.
“Congress may simply have written a statute that does this,” he mentioned. “It didn’t try this.”
He additional warned that allowing such lawsuits may open the door to claims towards state officers in different federally funded applications, citing the instance of a state college coach dealing with potential litigation over crew eligibility choices.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett echoed that concern, mentioning that federal appellate courts have persistently dominated towards related damages claims. “It’s laborious to see the way it’s clear if each circuit is popping out in a different way,” she informed Landor’s legal professional, Zachary Tripp.
The Courtroom’s three liberal justices, nevertheless, expressed assist for Landor’s place. Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that officers ought to already bear in mind they might face authorized penalties when violating federal rights, saying, “We’re all presumed to know the legislation after we take our jobs.” Justice Elena Kagan added, “Why would the rule be any completely different below RLUIPA?” noting that state officers are already topic to different civil rights fits.
Landor, who was serving a five-month sentence for a drug offense, introduced officers with a previous courtroom ruling affirming that slicing a Rastafarian’s hair violates spiritual rights. Regardless of this, two guards restrained him whereas one other shaved his head.
Decrease courts sided with the state, prompting Landor’s enchantment to the Supreme Courtroom, the place the choice may redefine how far spiritual protections lengthen for these behind bars.
RELATED CONTENT: Woman, Bye! Megyn Kelly Weighs In On Michelle Obama’s Hair—And No One Requested Her To
