Nicolai Haugsted
Rastafarian man has been denied right to sue local prison.
Hair can be many things — style, identity, culture.
For Damon Landor, it was also religion.
Now, after a years-long legal battle that reached America’s highest court, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against the Louisiana man who said prison guards violated his faith by forcibly shaving off dreadlocks he had spent two decades growing.
Landor is a Rastafarian, a faith that requires followers to let their hair grow naturally.
By 2020, his locks reportedly reached all the way to his knees.
Near the end of a prison sentence for drug possession, Landor was transferred to a correctional facility in Louisiana. According to court filings, he immediately informed officials that previous court rulings had found Louisiana’s policy of cutting Rastafarian inmates’ hair unlawful under federal religious-protection laws.
Landor even handed prison staff a copy of the ruling.
According to court records, a guard threw the document in the trash.
Shortly afterward, Landor was handcuffed to a chair, restrained and shaved.
Supreme Court closes the door
Landor later sued prison officials, arguing that his religious rights had been violated.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against him, says Reuters.
The court did not determine whether the shaving itself was lawful. Instead, the justices focused on whether individual prison employees can be personally sued for financial damages under the federal law known as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA.
Writing for the court’s conservative majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch concluded that they cannot.
Since the prison officials never agreed to be personally liable under the law, Gorsuch wrote that “Mr. Landor’s case cannot proceed against them any more than a breach of contract action might proceed against a defendant who never formed a contract.”
Sharp disagreement inside the court
The ruling sparked strong opposition from the court’s three liberal justices.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that the majority’s reasoning effectively rewrites federal law.
“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,” Jackson wrote.
Jackson warned that inmates whose religious rights are violated may now be left with little practical recourse.
Landor vows to keep fighting
Despite the setback, Landor said he is not giving up.
“I am disappointed but not defeated,” he said in a statement released by his attorneys.
“What happened to me violated my faith and my dignity. I will continue pursuing accountability. What happened to me should not happen to anyone else.”
Interestingly, the Trump administration supported Landor’s position before the court.
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, however, welcomed the outcome.
“We condemn the conduct as alleged in this case and have taken steps to prevent this problem from recurring, but we are grateful the court agreed with the state in this matter,” she said.
Broader concerns about inmate rights
Civil-rights advocates say the ruling could have consequences far beyond one inmate and one prison.
Rachel Laser, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, argued that the decision weakens protections for incarcerated people whose religious practices differ from the majority.
“Once again, we see a court that will bend over backward for the religious freedom of Christians, but allows the government to trample the religious freedom of non-Christians,” Laser said.
Legal experts expect the decision to become part of a broader debate over how far religious-rights protections extend behind prison walls — and what remedies remain available when those protections are violated.
