Additional Coverage:
- Supreme Court rules Rastafari man can’t sue Louisiana prison officials who cut his dreadlocks (irishstar.com)
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that a man whose dreadlocks were forcibly cut by prison guards cannot seek monetary damages, even if his religious rights were infringed. The 6-3 decision focused on a federal law designed to protect inmates’ religious freedoms, but which the majority said does not permit lawsuits for financial compensation in such cases.
The case involved Damon Landor, a former Louisiana state prison inmate, whose hair was shaved in 2020 while he was handcuffed to a chair at the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center. Despite his protests and showing guards a court ruling that cutting a Rastafarian’s locks violates religious rights, officers enforced the prison’s grooming policy. Landor had followed a religious practice called the Nazirite vow and had not cut his hair for 20 years.
The majority opinion, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, emphasized that Landor’s suit could only proceed if the guards had consented to liability under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act-a condition that was not met. Gorsuch likened pursuing the case to a breach of contract claim where no contract exists.
In dissent, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Kentanji Brown Jackson expressed concern that the ruling leaves inmates with no recourse for clear violations of their religious freedoms. Jackson warned that prisoners subjected to such infringements may be “left remediless,” undermining the law’s purpose of safeguarding religious exercise in prisons.
This ruling marks a departure from previous Supreme Court decisions where conservative justices have taken a strong stance in favor of religious liberties, such as protecting a high school coach’s right to pray on the field. It also contrasts with a recent decision affirming a Catholic group’s free speech rights after Philadelphia declined to collaborate with them due to their religious stance on same-sex couples.
The Court’s decision underscores the complex balance between enforcing prison policies and protecting religious rights, while highlighting the limitations of existing legal remedies available to incarcerated individuals.