U.S. Supreme Courtroom
Rastafarian’s non secular freedom swimsuit towards jail officers for chopping his hair wins Supreme Courtroom assessment
The U.S. Supreme Courtroom agreed Monday to resolve whether or not a Rastafarian with non secular objections to chopping his hair can search cash damages from Louisiana jail officers for strapping him down and shaving his head. (Photograph from Shutterstock)
The U.S. Supreme Courtroom agreed Monday to resolve whether or not a Rastafarian with non secular objections to chopping 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 Non secular 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 reduce his hair whereas ignoring the court docket determination that he carried establishing his proper to maintain his hair.
The fifth U.S. Circuit Courtroom of Appeals at New Orleans dominated towards 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 chopping Rastafarians’ hair violated the RLUIPA.
However the Supreme Courtroom ought to resolve the conflict between two of its opinions, one involving the RLUIPA and one other involving the Non secular Freedom Restoration Act—or the RFRA—the concurrence mentioned.
Each legal guidelines authorize courts to grant “applicable 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 Courtroom has dominated that sovereign immunity protects states from cash damages beneath the RLUIPA while allowing damages claims by the RFRA towards federal officers of their particular person capacities.
Landor argued that the RLUIPA’s promise is “empty” with out a damages treatment.
“No reduction will not be ‘applicable reduction,’” the cert petition argued.
SCOTUSblog, Bloomberg Law, Law360 and the New York Times 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 story tip or update, or report an error.
