World

US Supreme Court says Rastafarian man shaved by prison guards can’t sue

Al Jazeera · 2026-06-23

AI SUMMARY

• What happened: The US Supreme Court ruled that Damon Landor, a Rastafarian man whose dreadlocks were cut by prison guards, cannot sue the officials under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) for violating his religious rights. • Why it matters: The ruling highlights limitations on the ability of incarcerated individuals to seek damages against prison staff for violations of their religious freedoms, potentially impacting the enforcement of religious rights in correctional facilities. • What to watch next: Observers will monitor Landor's next steps as he vows to continue pursuing accountability for the violation of his religious beliefs and the implications of this ruling on future cases involving prisoners' rights.

SaveSharefacebookxwhatsapp-strokecopylinkThe Supreme Court's six-person conservative majority ruled against a Rastafari plaintiff who sought to sue prison guards on religious freedom grounds [Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images/AFP]By Al Jazeera Staff, Reuters and The Associated PressPublished On 23 Jun 202623 Jun 2026The United States Supreme Court has determined that a Rastafarian man cannot sue prison officials who cut his dreadlocks for violating his religious beliefs.On Tuesday, the court’s conservative majority ruled that Damon Landor, a formerly incarcerated man, cannot file a lawsuit against prison staff for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a law meant to uphold religious liberties for those behind bars.Recommended Stories list of 3 itemslist 1 of 3US Supreme Court sides with Trump administration on green card holder caselist 2 of 3US Supreme Court OKs ExxonMobil lawsuit over Castro-era property seizurelist 3 of 3US Supreme Court eases restrictions on drug users owning firearmsend of listWriting for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch did not argue that Landor’s religious rights had not been violated.Instead, he wrote that it was improper to sue the prison officials, as they had not consented to be liable under the RLUIPA law.“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,” Gorsuch wrote.The ruling upheld a lower court’s decision which found that incarcerated people cannot seek financial damages from individual employees, even in cases where their rights were violated.Landor, however, released a statement through his lawyers indicating he would continue his pursuit of justice.“I am disappointed but not defeated,” Landor said in a statement from his lawyers. “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.”Landor served a five-month prison term in Louisiana in 2020. He is Rastafarian, a religion that requires him to grow his hair as a sign of his faith. As he entered the prison system, he carried a copy of a 2017 appeals court ruling that found that cutting a religious prisoner’s dreadlocks violated federal law.Prison officials initially respected Landor’s beliefs. But after he was transferred to the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center in Louisiana, a prison guard threw the document in the trash, and the facility’s warden then ordered his hair cut, according to court filings.Two guards held Landor down as a third shaved his head.In writing for the six-member majority, Gorsuch maintained that the law imposes obligations only on the state or local entity receiving federal funds, not on individual employees, as they have not consented to be subject to lawsuits under the statute.The court’s three liberal justices dissented, arguing that RLUIPA is a law rather than a contract.Writing for the dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that the distinction was key. Prison officials, she said, would have little reason to abide by legal protections for prisoners, absent any consequences for their actions.“It is not often that a real-life incident so clearly illustrates Congress’s reasons for adopting legislation, or the Constitution’s wisdom in enabling it,” Brown Jackson wrote.

Source: Al Jazeera
RELATED NEWS

More Stories

All News
World

Eight sentenced to 450 years in prison over anti-ICE riot where officer was shot

• What happened: Eight individuals connected to Antifa were sentenced to a total of 450 years in prison for their involvement in a violent riot outside an immig...

World

Iran war live: Trump, Tehran at odds over nuclear inspections, Hormuz

• What happened: Tensions between the US and Iran have escalated as both nations provide conflicting statements during ongoing negotiations regarding Iran'...

World

UN begins evacuation of 11,000 sailors stranded in Strait of Hormuz

• What happened: The UN has initiated an evacuation operation for over 11,000 sailors stranded in the Strait of Hormuz due to a closure imposed by Iran since Fe...

World

Ronaldo late to World Cup party but still able to steal the show

• What happened: Cristiano Ronaldo scored two goals for Portugal in a 5-0 victory against Uzbekistan at the World Cup, marking his first goals of the tournament...

World

Protesters sentenced to decades in US prison over alleged antifa ties

• What happened: A former U.S. Marine reservist and seven others were sentenced to lengthy prison terms, ranging from 30 to 100 years, for their involvement in ...

World

Israel’s deliberate targeting of Palestinian children

• What happened: A UN Commission of Inquiry report has documented the severe impact of Israel's military actions in Gaza and its occupation of the West Ban...