A court is deciding whether a Rastafarian can sue for damages after a Louisiana prison guard shaved off his dreadlocks.
Can marijuana smokers legally own guns? Supreme Court rules
Lower courts have ruled that past drug use does not violate the Second Amendment unless the gun owner is currently a high-level gun owner. The Department of Justice disagrees.
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court, which is increasingly protecting religious rights, is expected to be sympathetic to a Rastafarian who sought help after a Louisiana prison guard forcibly shaved off his dreadlocks.
But if the justices had not been attuned to the long lock’s spiritual significance when taking up Damon Landau’s appeal on Nov. 10, religious scholars likely would have convinced the court of its significance.
Seven of the Supreme Court justices were raised Catholic. Because dreadlocks are a connection to the living essence of the universe, cutting them off would be like preventing Catholics from receiving the Eucharist, five religious experts said in a letter supporting Lander.
“To be irrevocably deprived of such an important symbolic and physical connection to God against one’s will is a brutal and inhuman violation of Rastafari religious freedom and demands a path to reparations,” they wrote.
Religious and civil rights groups support the right to sue.
The court will consider on November 10 whether Landau can sue prison officials for damages after cutting off his knee-length hair, which he had been growing for nearly 10 years.
Mr. Lander has the support of the Justice Department and a variety of religious and civil liberties groups across the ideological spectrum.
The conservative group Alliance Defending Freedom, which earlier took on the liberal American Civil Liberties Union in a lawsuit over religious charter schools, joined forces with the ACLU and others in a short letter supporting Lander.
The court also heard from organizations representing Jews, Baptists, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Quakers, Unitarians, Seventh-day Adventists, Hindus, and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Groups representing Native Americans told the court that the case was particularly important to them because “the forced cutting of Native American hair continued even after the United States turned its back on clearer prohibitions on Native American religious exercise.”
The High Court previously upheld prisoners’ right to grow beards
Ten years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that a Muslim man’s religious rights were violated when the Arkansas Department of Corrections did not allow him to grow a beard, citing safety concerns.
“Hair is a more plausible place to hide contraband than a half-inch beard, and the same is true of an inmate’s clothing and shoes,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court’s unanimous opinion. “Nonetheless, the department does not require inmates to be bald, barefoot, or nude.”
Both the 2015 lawsuit and Landau’s appeal rely on a law Congress passed unanimously in 2000 to protect the religious rights of prisoners.
But the issue in this case is not whether the Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety must allow dreadlocks, as two of the state prisons that held Landor in 2020 allowed before he was transferred to a third prison.
The question is whether Landau can claim compensation now that they are gone.
“My hair is a part of me, a part of who I am.”
Lander had shown officials at the third facility a copy of a court ruling that allowed him to grow dreadlocks for religious reasons. But a security guard at the water intake threw the ruling in the trash and called for the warden, according to court filings.
Landau did not immediately comply with the warden’s request to document his religious beliefs in court, and was handcuffed to a chair with his dreadlocks shaved off.
“My hair is part of me, a part of who I am,” Landau said in a statement to USA TODAY, recalling how she relied on her religion to survive incarceration. “So when they cut off my hair, they also cut off my crown.”
Louisiana says Rastafarians can’t sue prison officials
State officials said they condemned what happened to Landau “in the strongest possible terms” and stressed that the Department of Corrections had amended its grooming policy to prevent a repeat of his ordeal.
But they argue that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act does not allow prisoners to sue for damages.
He warned that such a lawsuit would have “many unintended consequences,” including making it more difficult to staff prisons and jails.
Lander’s lawyers argue that without damages, the 2000 law won’t help him.
“Without remedies and accountability, RLUIPA’s soaring promises ring hollow,” they wrote in a brief to the court. “That’s just plain wrong. Congress didn’t enact RLUIPA so that state officials were free to ignore it.”
“It’s not a one-time issue.”
In 2020, the high court ruled that a Muslim man can sue FBI officials for damages if he claims his religious rights were violated by refusing to provide FBI information and being placed on the government’s no-fly list.
The case involved a similar federal law protecting religious expression. However, Louisiana argues that RLUIPA operates differently because it involves state agencies. States agree to follow federal rules when receiving federal funds, but states say that does not create personal liability on prison officials.
But the Justice Department and an array of interest groups support Lander’s argument that prison officials can be prosecuted and must be held accountable.
“This is not a one-off issue, and the same is true for Rastafarians,” lawyers for 44 religious groups said in a filing.
A group of senior former correctional officials, including former leaders of prison systems in Texas and New York, said correctional officers “know and expect to be held accountable when they violate the clearly established civil rights of prisoners.”
“Substantial research shows that granting such accommodations facilitates reintegration, increases prison safety, reduces the likelihood of recidivism, and provides community both inside and outside of prison,” they wrote in their submission.
Justice Department says this case will not amount to a frivolous lawsuit
The Justice Department has argued that Landau’s ruling will not trigger a flood of lawsuits from prisoners because of safeguards against frivolous claims. These include a 1996 law passed in response to prisoner lawsuits and a legal doctrine known as “qualified immunity” that protects public officials in many situations.
Samuel Bray, a law professor at the University of Chicago, said the case pits two trends against each other. While courts are very friendly to religious freedom claims, they are very hostile to lawsuits seeking damages against government officials.
But Bray said Louisiana’s facts in the case are so bad that it would tip the balance in Landau’s favor.
“He’s going to get damages,” Bray said.
