NOW PLAYING
The Supreme Court ruled that a Rastafarian man cannot seek damages from state prison guards who shaved his dreadlocks in violation of his religious rights in a 6-3 decision along ideological lines on Tuesday.
Guards at a Louisiana prison handcuffed Damon Landor to a chair and forcibly shaved his hair when he was weeks away from completing his five-month drug sentence.
Landor had handed the guards a federal appeals court ruling that shaving Rastafarian inmates’ dreadlocks violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal religious liberty law. The guards threw it in the trash.
All sides condemn Landor’s treatment. But Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the six-justice conservative majority, said Landor can’t pursue damages because the state guards hadn’t formed any agreement with the federal government.
“Mr. Landor does not allege that any of those individuals has entered any agreement with the federal government, let alone that any of them has voluntarily and knowingly consented to answer private suits under RLUIPA,” Gorsuch wrote.
In dissent, the three liberal justices called it a “peculiar position.”
“Today’s decision magically transforms a federal statute into an invitation to be accepted or declined, deemed binding only if each particular defendant has explicitly agreed to be penalized,” wrote Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. “No matter that laws, as opposed to contracts, don’t ordinarily work this way.”
Landor was supported by the Trump administration, which argued the case alongside his attorney. Republican Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Ted Budd (N.C.) filed briefs supporting him, as did the conservative Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and various religious groups.
It put them at odds with Louisiana Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill’s office. The state condemned Landor’s treatment but insisted he had no legal right to sue for damages.
The battle over RLUIPA follows a 2020 decision from the Supreme Court concerning its sister statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). That case was brought by Muslim men who said they were placed on the No Fly List. The justices unanimously ruled that RFRA does permit damage suits.
But RLUIPA differs in multiple respects. Notably, RLUIPA was enacted through Congress’s spending power, while RFRA was not. And Supreme Court precedent mandates that laws enacted under the spending power must clear a higher bar to authorize damages suits.
“Congress must clearly and unambiguously alert a grant recipient to any condition on federal funds,” Gorsuch noted.
Add as preferred source on Google Tags Elena Kagan Ketanji Brown Jackson Neil Gorsuch Sonia Sotomayor Ted Budd Ted CruzCopyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Comments: Link copiedMore Court Battles News
See All
Court Battles Supreme Court sides with Cisco in Falun Gong human rights abuse lawsuit by Sophie Brams 15 minutes ago Court Battles / 15 minutes ago 
