S7, Ep. 05: A religious freedom case flying under the radar: SCOTUS hears Landor v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections
Why did the justices seem so skeptical about a case that is uniting other groups?
One religious freedom case at the Supreme Court isn’t getting the sort of attention as others, despite how it’s uniting groups that often disagree. So, why did the justices sound so skeptical in the courtroom? Amanda and Holly review this week’s oral arguments in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, which involves the remedy available to a man whose religious freedom rights were violated when he was in prison. The violation isn’t in question, so why is the remedy? Amanda and Holly review the details in this case, play audio from key moments in the courtroom, and discuss the statute that protects prisoners’ religious freedom rights: The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.
SHOW NOTES
Segment 1 (starting at 00:35): RLUIPA, RFRA, and this case
Amanda and Holly previewed the Landor case earlier this season – watch their conversation on BJC’s YouTube channel.
BJC joined a diverse group of organizations on a friend-of-the-court brief in this case on the side of Mr. Landor – click this link to read the brief and see the groups who found common ground.
RLUIPA is the acronym for the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, passed by Congress in the year 2000. The acronym is often pronounced “Re-loop-ah.” RFRA is the acronym for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, pronounced “Riff-rah.”
For more on the 2020 decision in Tanzin v. Tanvir, read this article on our website: Supreme Court rules RFRA allows monetary damages against federal officials
Segment 2 (starting at 11:05): What happened in the courtroom? Arguments on behalf of Mr. Landor
The Supreme Court heard Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections on Monday, November 10. Visit the Supreme Court’s website to read a transcript or hear the audio from the courtroom.
We played four clips from oral arguments in this segment.
- Zack Tripp’s opening statement, representing Mr. Landor (from 00:15-2:02 in the audio of the arguments)
- Exchange between Justice Samuel Alito and Zack Tripp (from 20:00-21:25 in the oral arguments)
- Exchange between Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Zack Tripp (from 23:35-25:56 in the oral arguments)
- Exchange between Justice Elena Kagan and Libby A. Baird, assistant to the solicitor general (from 1:06:38-1:07:38 in the oral argument)
Segment 3 (starting at 31:31): What did the state of Louisiana argue?
We played one clip from the oral argument during this segment:
- Exchange between Justice Elena Kagan and Ben Aguiñaga, the solicitor general of Louisiana (from 1:38:33-1:40:26)
Read more about the arguments in this article by Amy Howe for SCOTUSblog: Court appears skeptical of prison inmate’s religious liberty claim
Video of our episodes are now on YouTube! Click here for the season 7 playlist.
Do you want special emails about the show? Click here to sign up for our email list!
Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC’s generous donors. Your gift to BJC is tax-deductible, and you can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.
Watch the video of this podcast below:
A transcript of this program will be available in the future — return to this page for the latest.
