SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments on Rastafarian Hair-Cutting Case
by Michael Thompson
Damon Landor is a devout Rastafarian who grew his hair for decades without cutting it as part of his “Nazarite Vow.” Accordingly, his hair had grown long enough to reach nearly to his knees by the time he was incarcerated in the Louisiana Department of Corrections (DOC) for five months in 2020. Just three weeks from the end of his sentence, he was transferred to his third unit. Neither of his previous units had challenged his hair length.
The third unit, Raymonde Laborde Correctional Center, however, challenged him at intake. Landor explained his religious belief to the guard at intake and even handed over a copy of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Ware v. Louisiana Dept. of Corr., in which Louisiana’s policy of cutting Rastafarian hair was held to have violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). The guard responded by throwing the decision in the trash and calling in the warden. The warden demanded immediate proof of his religious affiliation, which Landor was unable to provide. Landor was then cuffed to a chair, held down, and his head shaved. See: Ware v. Louisiana Dept. of Corr., 866 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2017).
Landor sued after his release. In his complaint, he brought individual-capacity claims against the warden and the two unnamed guards who held him down as well as Louisiana’s DOC and then-Public Safety Secretary, James LeBlanc. The district court granted a motion to dismiss because precedent held that the RLUIPA does not provide for damages against state officials. They likewise dismissed his request for injunctive relief as moot.
The case wended its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court where the conservative justices appear poised to find against him. Landor is represented in this case by Zachary Tripp who told the justices that it is “undisputed” that Landor has alleged an assault that is “brazenly illegal,” a “poster child [case] for a RLUIPA violation.” In support of Landor’s individual-capacities claim, Tripp pointed to RLUIPA’s “sister act”, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that was held in Tanzin v. Tanvir by the Supreme Court to provide “ appropriate relief” of money damages in lawsuits against government officials in their individual capacities. See: Tanzin v. Tanvir, 592 U.S. 43 (2020).
The RFRA uses the same wording as the RLUIPA, causing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to “explicitly denounce” in Haight v. Thompson the rule that barred the individual capacity damages under the RLUIPA. Tripp argued that without the opportunity to sue officials in their individual capacities for damages, those officials could treat the law “like garbage.” See: Haight v. Thompson, 763 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2014).
Among the arguments employed by the conservative justices was that the individual officials did not agree to be subject to money damages and be bound by the RLUIPA. “What notice did they have?” asked Justice Neal Gorsuch. Libby Baird, assistant to the United States solicitor general, argued for the Trump Administration in support of Landor. Baird told the justices that the RLUIPA clearly authorizes such damages. The RLUIPA “puts states on clear notice.” Justice Ketanji Brown agreed with Baird, saying that they have to comply with RLUIPA as part of accepting their jobs, to which Chief Justice John Roberts responded that was a “legal fiction” and “not what happens as a matter of practice.”
The Court additionally focused on the fact that the prison officials were not direct recipients of federal funding. In essence, the RLUIPA is a spending statute and third parties cannot be held liable. Justice Amy Comey Barrett agreed with the Chief Justice on this, though she found the case “egregious.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor sought a middle ground, arguing that while money damages might not be available in this case on the theory, they did not have clear notice, the court could rule in a manner that did give notice for any future cases.
Sources: SCOTUSblog
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Haight v. Thompson
| Year | 2014 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 763 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2014) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |
| Appeals Court Edition | F.3d |