Supreme Court Sides Against Rastafarian in Dreadlock-Cutting Prison Lawsuit

The Supreme Court deliberated on a significant case involving Damon Landor, a Rastafarian whose dreadlocks were forcibly cut while he was incarcerated. This incident occurred at a Louisiana prison five years ago when Landor was just weeks away from completing his sentence for drug possession.

Case Background

Damon Landor had cultivated his knee-length dreadlocks over two decades and adhered to the Nazarite vow, which prohibits cutting hair. He presented a judicial opinion arguing that correctional facilities should respect religious practices regarding dreadlocks.

Supreme Court Arguments

During the nearly two-hour session, justices expressed skepticism about allowing Landor to pursue damages against correctional officials. The conservative majority seemed more focused on establishing limits on lawsuits against state employees rather than adjudicating the specific facts of Landor’s case.

Judicial Opinions

• Justice Amy Coney Barrett acknowledged the severity of Landor’s treatment but indicated that the case’s facts alone are insufficient for a ruling.
• Justice Neil Gorsuch raised concerns about broader implications, suggesting it could open the door for various lawsuits against individual officials.

Previous Legal Rulings

The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Landor, stating he could not sue under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Despite condemning his treatment, the court adhered to prior legal precedents, reaffirming that individual officials cannot be personally liable under the law.

5th Circuit Rationale

The appeals court emphasized that RLUIPA operates as a framework between the federal government and state officials concerning funding for state prisons. As individual employees were not part of this contractual agreement, Louisiana argued they should not be held liable.

Future Implications

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on this case next year. The outcome could have significant implications for how prisoners’ religious rights are protected and whether state officials can be sued personally in similar cases.