Prison guards forcibly shaved a Rastafarian inmate’s dreadlocks just three weeks before his release, tossing aside a court order supporting his religious rights and igniting a Supreme Court case that could redefine religious freedoms for over one million incarcerated Americans.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court will review whether Damon Landor, a Rastafarian whose religious dreadlocks were forcibly cut, can sue prison officials for damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
- President Trump’s administration is supporting Landor’s right to sue for damages, arguing current limitations undermine religious freedom protections.
- Louisiana officials discarded Landor’s court order supporting his religious rights before cutting his hair, but claim allowing personal lawsuits would worsen prison staffing shortages.
- The case could set a precedent affecting religious accommodation rights for more than one million Americans in state prisons and local jails.
- The Supreme Court will hear arguments this fall, with a decision expected by summer 2026.
Religious Rights Violated in Final Weeks of Sentence
Damon Landor was just three weeks away from completing his five-month sentence at Raymond Laborde Correctional Center in Louisiana when prison guards forcibly shaved his dreadlocks. The action directly violated his Rastafarian faith, which requires adherents to maintain uncut hair as part of a sacred “Nazarite Vow.” Despite Landor presenting a court order supporting his religious rights, prison officials allegedly threw away the document before proceeding with the forced haircut, showing blatant disregard for both legal protections and religious freedoms.
This case raises serious questions about how religious accommodations are handled within the prison system, particularly when clear legal documentation exists. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged Landor’s mistreatment but claimed their hands were tied by current law, which doesn’t permit damages against individual prison officials under RLUIPA. This legal gap has allowed prison officials to escape accountability for what appears to be a deliberate violation of constitutional rights.
Trump Administration Backs Religious Liberty Protections
In a significant development, President Trump’s administration is supporting Landor’s appeal to the Supreme Court. The administration’s stance aligns with its broader commitment to protecting religious liberties, even for those who are incarcerated. This support demonstrates the current administration’s consistent defense of First Amendment rights across all contexts, including correctional facilities where such protections are often most vulnerable to abuse.
“The denial of a damages remedy to vindicate RLUIPA’s substantive protections would undermine that important purpose. And the circumstances precluding relief here are not unique,” said Solicitor General D. John Sauer.
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, signed into law during President Clinton’s administration, prohibits the government from imposing substantial burdens on religious exercise unless it can prove the burden serves a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of doing so. However, without the ability to seek damages from officials who violate the law, critics argue that the protection lacks meaningful enforcement mechanisms.
Potential Far-Reaching Consequences for Prison Religious Rights
The case could have profound implications for religious practice within correctional facilities nationwide. Landor’s attorneys emphasize that this isn’t just about one man’s dreadlocks but about meaningful protections for all incarcerated individuals with sincere religious beliefs. The current inability to hold officials personally accountable creates a system where violations can occur without consequences, effectively rendering religious protection laws toothless.
More than one million people are incarcerated in state prisons and local jails. Under the prevailing rule in the circuit courts, those individuals are deprived of a key remedy crucial to obtaining meaningful relief,” argued Landor’s attorneys at Weil, Gotshal & Manges and Casey Denson Law.
Louisiana officials counter that allowing personal lawsuits would exacerbate staffing shortages in prisons, arguing: “Serious consequences would flow from Petitioner’s view, if adopted. For example, the current staffing shortage in state prisons would only grow worse if current staff and potential job applicants learned that they would be personally liable for money damages.” This argument prioritizes administrative convenience over constitutional rights, a position that runs counter to America’s foundational principles.
Supreme Court to Decide on Damages for Religious Rights Violations
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case signals its recognition of the important questions at stake. Four justices voted to take up Landor’s appeal, with oral arguments scheduled for the fall term beginning in October. The case, officially titled Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, 23-1197, could fundamentally reshape how religious accommodations are handled in correctional facilities across the nation.
“Without a damages remedy, RLUIPA’s promise was empty. The panel could respond only by writing in italics that it ’emphatically condemned [ed]’ Landor’s mistreatment, as it dismissed his claims and left Landor with no relief whatsoever. That is a telltale sign that this Court’s intervention is needed,” argued lawyers for Landor.
While Louisiana has since amended its prison grooming policy, this change came too late for Landor and doesn’t address the larger question of accountability when violations occur. The Supreme Court’s ruling, expected by summer 2026, will likely establish whether RLUIPA can provide meaningful protection for religious rights or will remain a well-intentioned law with limited practical effect for those most vulnerable to having their constitutional rights violated.
