WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday appeared unlikely to allow a devout Rastafarian to bring a damages claim against Louisiana prison officials who cut his dreadlocks in violation of his religious rights.
Based on Monday's argument, a majority of the justices did not appear to think Congress specifically allowed for state officials to be sued under a federal law called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA.
The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, is often solicitous toward religious claims, although the bulk of recent cases have involved cases brought by conservative Christians.
Prior to the 2020 incident at the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center, Damon Landor had not cut his hair for almost 20 years, following a practice known as the Nazarite vow.
Landor’s lawyers are asking the Supreme Court to rule that damages should be allowed under RLUIPA, citing a ruling in 2020 that said damages are available under a similar law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
But Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga appeared to find a receptive audience among the conservative justices for his argument that the outcome is not determined by how the court ruled in the 2020 case in part because that dispute involved federal, not state, officials.
Several justices focused on the lack of specific language in the law to allow for damages claims against officials in states that have received federal funding.
"Congress could easily have written a statute that does this," Justice Neil Gorsuch said, adding, "it didn't do that."
If the court allowed such claims under RLUIPA it could lead to similar lawsuits against officials in states that receive funding under many other federal laws, he added.
Gorsuch cited as an example how the coach of a state university could potentially be sued for allowing a transgender woman to play on a women's sports team.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed similar concerns, noting that regional federal courts, known as circuits, have routinely ruled against plaintiffs in cases seeking damages under RLUIPA.
"It's hard to see how it's clear if every circuit is coming out differently," she told Landor's lawyer, Zachary Tripp.
The court's three liberal justices appeared much more sympathetic to Landor's argument.
On the question of whether officials have to be on notice that they can be sued as a condition of receiving funds, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said: "We're all presumed to know the law when we take our jobs."
Similarly, Justice Elena Kagan noted that state officials are already subject to civil rights lawsuits under federal law.
"Why would the rule be any different under RLUIPA?" she asked.
Landor was serving a five-month sentence on a drug-related charge when the incident took place.
Over his objections, a corrections officer handcuffed him to a chair while two others shaved his head.
The officers went ahead even though Landor had shown them a copy of a binding court ruling that said it would be a religious rights violation to cut a Rastafarian’s dreadlocks.
Lower courts ruled in favor of the state, prompting Landor to turn to the Supreme Court.
