Religious freedom is for everyone. That’s a promise — as well as a calling for us today — straight out of our country’s flawed but hopeful “history and tradition” that the current U.S. Supreme Court keeps emphasizing.
If we want religious freedom for ourselves, we need to ensure it for our neighbors. Congress was doing just that in 2000 when it passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (known as RLUIPA), which provides statutory protection for religious exercise to those in government custody.
Holly Hollman
This week the court heard arguments in Landor v. Department of Corrections, a case brought to ensure RLUIPA works as intended. I’m hopeful the case might also remind us that religious liberty can and should be a uniting commitment that protects vulnerable populations, as well as those in the Christian majority.
Specifically, the court will determine if a prisoner’s right to obtain “appropriate relief against a government” includes potential money damages against the offending government officials. Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and a broad coalition of religious freedom advocates argue it does.
As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit put it, the facts of the underlying case are “stark and egregious.” They demonstrate the importance of protecting prisoners and the necessity of oversight by courts.
“Prison officials held him down and forcibly shaved his dreadlocks.”
The violation was plain. Petitioner Damon Landor is a devout Rastafarian who — like the famously strong Samson in the Hebrew Bible — took an oath not to cut his hair. Landor let his dreadlocks grow for decades, and while serving time in a Louisiana prison, his religious observance had been respected. But when he was transferred to a different facility, prison officials held him down and forcibly shaved his dreadlocks. Adding further insult, they threw away his copy of a federal court decision upholding Rastafarian prisoners’ right to wear dreadlocks.
Religious liberty cases often sharply divide the community of interest groups that focus on the First Amendment. The Landor case unites them.
BJC, the organization I serve, joined an amicus brief led by the Christian Legal Society in support of Landor that drew a wide range of signers. The diversity of organizations collaborating in this case reflects the principle that religious freedom protects the most vulnerable individuals and communities — a principle that harkens back to RLUIPA’s beginning.
Damon Landor with dreadlocks
RLUIPA is modeled on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, an earlier statute that applies only to the federal government. The Supreme Court has held that “appropriate relief against a government” under RFRA includes compensatory damages against federal employees. The identical language in RLUIPA, which provides similar protections against state and local governments, should be interpreted the same way.
Otherwise, Landor and many former prisoners could be left with no effective remedy. Courts can enjoin — order an end to — prison policies that unnecessarily burden religious liberty. But there was no chance to get an injunction against the prison’s sudden assault on Landor. As our amicus brief states: “His sole chance for effective relief is to seek damages from the offending officials in their individual capacities.”
Even if prison guards and officials are liable for damages under RLUIPA, they still will be protected by the Supreme Court’s rule of “qualified immunity.” Government employees are liable for damages only if they violate “clearly established law,” and the Supreme Court interprets that requirement to provide extraordinary protection for defendants. Landor’s claim can surmount this hurdle: He handed the guards the court decision that clearly established his rights, and after consulting the warden, they immediately violated that decision.
Many of the justices seemed skeptical about Landor’s claim for damages. Some worried about unintended consequences. But a decision in favor of Landor would prevent prisons from avoiding responsibility for such clear violations. It would help deter brutal treatment that insults our values.
By interpreting RLUIPA’s remedy provision consistent with that of RFRA, the court will safeguard legal protections for the most vulnerable and remind us of the highest ideals of our history and tradition.
Holly Hollman serves as general counsel of Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.
Related article: