The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Nov. 10 in a prison abuse case that could affect the religious freedom rights of inmates nationwide.
Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections stems from prison guards forcibly shaving a Rastafarian man’s hair in 2020 and argues prisoners should be able to sue corrections officials and personnel for monetary damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
The 2000 law protects religious institutions from unfair land-use regulations and safeguards the religious rights of inmates in state prisons that receive federal funding. The measure was enacted to provide state-level protections not included in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
Damon Landor with dreadlocks
Damon Landor was serving five months for drug possession when he was transferred to a new location with three weeks left on his sentence. While previous facilities honored Landor’s Rastafarian faith and its tradition of wearing dreadlocks, Raymond Laborde Correctional Center in Cottonport, La., did not, according to Landor’s petition.
“‘The warden instructed prison guards to escort Landor to another room, where Landor was forcibly handcuffed to a chair. As two guards held Landor down,’ another ‘shaved his head to the scalp.’”
The incident occurred after the inmate showed guards a copy of a 2017 Fifth District Court of Appeals ruling upholding Rastafarians’ rights to keep their dreads while serving in Louisiana prisons.
Upon release, Landor sued the state secretary of corrections and the warden and unnamed guards at Raymond Laborde Correctional Center. A federal district court dismissed the lawsuit on grounds RLUIPA does not allow damages against individuals.
The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals “emphatically condemned the treatment that Landor endured” but upheld the court ruling affirming that Landor “cannot seek money damages from officials in their individual capacities,” the plaintiff’s attorneys explained in petition.
Damon Landor prison photo
But they also noted the 2020 Supreme Court ruling in Tanzin v. Tanvir granted monetary damages against federal employees under RFRA should apply to religious freedom violations in state institutions under RLUPIA.
“The ‘stark and egregious’ facts of this case vividly illustrate the importance of a damages remedy to protecting religious exercise,” the attorneys explain. “Landor clearly suffered a grave legal wrong. The question is whether a damages remedy is available to him under RLUIPA. That is a question only the Supreme Court can answer.”
The Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, however, countered that other appellate courts have rejected RLUPIA claims against individuals.
“For a quarter century, the states have accepted federal funds each year on a settled understanding: That acceptance does not trigger the availability of individual-capacity claims for damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act,’ according to the department’s Supreme Court brief.
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill acknowledged the importance of religious liberty but added “10 federal courts of appeals have held (RLUPIA) does not allow prisoners to sue prison officials in their personal capacities for damages,” CNN reported.
But forcibly cutting off the knee-length dreads of a devout Rastafarian must have tangible repercussions for Louisiana’s prison system and its employees, said Rachel Laser, president of Americans United for Separation of State.
“True religious freedom means all Americans must be free to live as themselves and believe as they choose, as long as they do not harm others. Damon Landor’s religious beliefs clearly posed no threats to prison officials or other incarcerated people.”
Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty also filed a brief in the case, arguing: “For some prisoners, the burden on religion is the destruction or seizure of religious property. … Thus, damages are crucial when prison guards damage, seize or destroy a prisoner’s religious book. … And damages are the only possible remedy for the assault, battery and forcible shaving of plaintiff’s head in this case.”
BJC’s Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman discuss the case in a recent podcast episode.