During oral arguments on Monday, the Supreme Court’s conservative justices voiced concerns about a Rastafarian man seeking compensation after a guard forcibly shaved his dreadlocks, which he argues violated his religious rights.
Damon Landau was nearing the end of a five-month sentence for drug offenses when he was moved to a different facility. Reports indicate that guards restrained him and shaved his head against his will.
Landau follows the Nazarite vow, which prohibits cutting hair. He presented a court ruling to the guard indicating that shaving Rastafarian inmates’ hair is against federal religious freedom laws, but the guard dismissed it and proceeded with the shaving.
Although all parties have denounced how Landau was treated, the Supreme Court’s focus is on whether he can sue prison officials personally for damages. His case has garnered backing from the Trump administration.
The court’s conservative majority often fortifies religious freedoms, but they are also hesitant about increasing personal liability for government officials.
Justice Neil Gorsuch remarked, “We didn’t do that,” referring to the legislation at the heart of the case. He noted that, while it could have been done, it hasn’t been legislated.
The Supreme Court is evaluating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which enhances religious protections for state inmates in federally funded prisons.
Five years ago, the Court unanimously ruled that its complementary legislation permitted lawsuits against federal workers in their individual roles over monetary compensation. This decision favored a group of Muslim men who claimed they were unjustly placed on no-fly lists for not cooperating with authorities regarding religious communities.
Landau, present at the arguments, believes his case should align with that prior ruling.
“They’re like twins separated at birth. They clearly mean the same thing,” argued Landau’s attorney, Zachary Tripp, comparing the two laws.
However, the current case hinges on different constitutional grounds, having been enacted through Congress’ spending authority. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that such laws must explicitly allow for damages.
“The hard part for your case is needing a clear statement,” Judge Brett Kavanaugh noted to Landau’s legal team, indicating that “appropriate relief” does not clearly include damages.
The case’s complexity is further compounded by the support prison officials have from lower federal courts, all of which have ruled against permitting damages under this law.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned, “Is it so obvious that all the circuits considering this question have gone in the opposite direction?” drawing attention to the consensus among lower courts.
As skepticism emerged from the conservative justices regarding Landau’s claims, the liberal justices appeared more inclined to empathize with his situation. Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested, “Our new path is to adjudicate for the accused, right?” while addressing the actions of prison officials.
Louisiana Attorney General Ben Aguignaga cautioned that endorsing Landau’s argument would “fundamentally expand the power of Congress.” He explained that Louisiana has effectively contracted with the federal government to adhere to the law’s religious freedom protections, arguing that the guard is not a party to that contract.
“Even if Congress speaks with clear intent and establishes such a cause, Congress has overstepped its constitutional bounds,” Aguignaga stated.
This marks Louisiana’s second appearance before the Supreme Court this term. Recently, the justices considered Aguignaga’s request regarding the addition of a second majority Black district in the state’s congressional maps and the implications for race in redistricting.
Decisions in both cases are anticipated by next summer.
