Supreme Court Skeptical on Inmate’s Religious Liberty Case

UPDATE: The U.S. Supreme Court is currently hearing a critical case that could redefine religious rights for inmates, with justices expressing skepticism about allowing prisoners to sue individual government officials for damages. This urgent legal battle centers on Damon Landor, a devout Rastafarian who asserts his religious rights were violated when prison guards forcibly shaved his hair.

Landor, serving a five-month sentence in a Louisiana prison for drug charges, was reportedly restrained and had his hair cut against his will, despite presenting guards with legal documentation stating that such actions violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). This act prohibits substantial burdens on prisoners’ religious exercise, yet the justices appear divided on whether inmates can seek damages from individual officials.

During oral arguments on November 10, 2023, Justice Amy Coney Barrett acknowledged the “egregious” nature of Landor’s treatment but questioned the absence of legal precedent for holding non-recipients of federal funds personally liable under RLUIPA. The state of Louisiana argues that only the prison system, as a grant recipient, can be held accountable, a stance supported by a unanimous ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Landor’s legal team contends that the intent of RLUIPA was to allow for individual capacity lawsuits. Attorney Zachary Tripp emphasized the need for damages, stating, “Without damages, officials can literally treat the law like garbage.” The conservative majority of justices, however, indicated concerns about the clarity of the law regarding individual liability.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh highlighted the challenge in interpreting “appropriate relief” within the act, suggesting it may not clearly encompass damages. In contrast, liberal justices like Sonia Sotomayor pressed the state’s lawyer on the implications of allowing officials to evade personal accountability.

The National Sheriffs’ Association has filed an amicus brief in support of Louisiana, warning that a ruling in favor of Landor could lead to a surge in lawsuits, potentially overwhelming the prison and court systems. Sheriff Greg Champagne voiced concerns over a potential flood of litigation affecting resources.

Experts like anthropology professor Charles Price argue that enabling inmates to seek damages could significantly deter rights violations within prisons. Price stated, “If you give incarcerated people the opportunity to sue for individual damages… that should have a chilling effect on prison officials misbehaving.”

The Supreme Court’s decision is expected by the summer, and its implications could reshape the landscape of inmates’ religious rights across the nation. As this case develops, the legal community and civil rights advocates are closely monitoring the proceedings, underscoring the urgent nature of this landmark case.