AT A GLANCE
- The Supreme Court will hear Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections to decide if a prisoner can sue over forced hair cutting.
- Damon Landor, a Rastafarian, says his dreadlocks were cut against his religious beliefs in 2020.
- The case could expand protections under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
- Louisiana officials admit wrongdoing but dispute whether Landor is entitled to monetary damages.
Supreme Court to Decide if Louisiana Prisoner Can Sue After Guards Cut Off His Dreadlocks
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon weigh in on a Louisiana case that tests how far religious rights extend behind bars.
On Monday, the Court is set to hear arguments in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, a case stemming from the 2020 incident where prison officials forcibly cut the dreadlocks of Damon Landor, a devout Rastafarian.
Landor, who was serving a five-month sentence at the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center, had not cut his hair in nearly two decades, following the Nazarite vow — a central Rastafarian belief that forbids cutting one’s hair as a sign of spiritual devotion.
Despite showing officers a prior court ruling affirming that cutting a Rastafarian’s hair violates federal law, two guards handcuffed Landor as his locks were sheared off. “In an instant, they stripped him of decades of religious practice at the heart of his identity,” his attorneys wrote.
Landor sued under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which protects the religious exercise of people in prisons and other state institutions. His case challenges whether individuals can seek monetary damages when those rights are violated.
Louisiana’s Attorney General, Elizabeth Murrill, acknowledged the act went against religious freedom and said the state has since updated its grooming policies. However, she maintains that financial compensation is not justified.
Landor’s legal team argues otherwise, citing the Supreme Court’s 2020 Tanzin v. Tanvir ruling, which allowed damages under a similar federal law for Muslim men placed on the no-fly list after refusing to spy on their communities. They contend that without damages, RLUIPA would “ring hollow.”
The decision could set a landmark precedent for how far the courts will go in holding state officials accountable for violating the religious rights of incarcerated people.
