The Supreme Court Case That Could Redefine Religious Freedom Behind Bars
Nearly two million people are incarcerated in the United States. For many, maintaining religious practice is a lifeline. But what happens when that practice clashes with prison regulations? A case before the Supreme Court this November – Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections – isn’t about prayer in schools or funding for faith-based institutions, the typical battlegrounds of religious freedom litigation. It’s about a Rastafarian inmate, Damon Landor, and his right to wear dreadlocks, a practice central to his faith. The outcome will have profound implications for religious expression within correctional facilities and could reshape the landscape of accountability for violations of religious rights.
The Core of the Dispute: Religious Practice and Prison Policy
Damon Landor’s case centers on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a 2000 law designed to protect the religious freedom of incarcerated individuals. Landor, incarcerated for drug offenses, initially had his Rastafarian beliefs – including the wearing of dreadlocks as part of a “Nazarite vow” – respected. However, a transfer to a different facility led to a jarring reversal: despite a prior court order affirming his right to maintain his dreadlocks, he was forcibly shaved. He is now seeking monetary damages from the warden, arguing a violation of his RLUIPA rights.
Why This Case Matters: Beyond Dreadlocks and Shaving
The legal question isn’t whether Landor’s religious rights were violated – lower courts have already agreed they were. The crux of the matter is whether government officials can be held personally liable for monetary damages when they infringe upon those rights. This distinction is critical. A 2020 Supreme Court case, Tanzin v. Tanvir, allowed individuals to sue federal agents for damages under a similar law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). However, RLUIPA has never been interpreted to allow for such individual liability. If the Court rules in Landor’s favor, it could open the door to greater accountability for abuses of religious freedom within prisons and jails.
RFRA, RLUIPA, and the Shadow of Employment Division v. Smith
Understanding the context requires a brief look at the history of religious freedom law. The 1990 Supreme Court case Employment Division v. Smith significantly narrowed the scope of religious protections, allowing states to restrict religious practices unless they were specifically targeted. RFRA, passed in 1993, was a direct response, requiring strict scrutiny – a high legal standard – for any law substantially burdening religious exercise. RLUIPA, enacted in 2000, extended these protections to incarcerated individuals. The similarity in language between RFRA and RLUIPA is a key argument for Landor’s legal team, suggesting the same remedies should be available under both statutes. You can find more information about the history of these laws at the Becket Fund’s case page.
A Broad Coalition Weighs In
The widespread interest in this case is evident in the sheer number of amicus briefs filed with the Supreme Court – over 20 organizations, representing a diverse range of viewpoints, have weighed in. Notably, groups often at odds, such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Becket Fund, both support Landor’s position. This unusual alignment underscores the fundamental principle at stake: the right to freely express one’s beliefs, even in the deeply personal realm of grooming and appearance. The Trump administration also filed a brief encouraging the Court to hear the case, highlighting its broad significance.
The Future of Religious Freedom in Correctional Facilities
The Landor case arrives at a time of increasing religious diversity in the United States. While Christians still represent the majority (62%), nearly 30% of Americans identify as religiously unaffiliated, and 7% adhere to other faiths. This growing diversity necessitates a more nuanced understanding of religious practice and a greater commitment to protecting the rights of minority religions. A ruling in Landor’s favor would not only provide redress for his own experience but also send a powerful message that religious freedom is a fundamental right, even – and perhaps especially – for those behind bars. It could also incentivize correctional facilities to proactively accommodate religious practices, rather than waiting for costly litigation.
However, a ruling against Landor could leave incarcerated individuals with limited recourse when their religious rights are violated, effectively shielding government officials from accountability. The Supreme Court’s decision will undoubtedly shape the future of religious freedom litigation and the treatment of religious minorities within the criminal justice system. What are your predictions for how the Court will rule? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
