Supreme Court hears arguments about damages for religious freedom violation
Justices seemed uncertain about a specific remedy during arguments in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections
Despite wide agreement among advocacy groups, the Supreme Court justices seemed uncertain about a prisoner’s right to a specific remedy after a religious freedom violation.
During oral arguments in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections on Nov. 10, the justices were focused on the question presented in the case: Whether an individual may sue a government official in their individual capacity for damages after a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Passed in the year 2000, the law — commonly known as “RLUIPA” — protects the religious freedom rights of people in government custody, including prisoners. It has similar language to the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). In 2020, the Court ruled that an individual may sue a government official in their individual capacity after a violation of RFRA, and now the Court must decide whether RLUIPA allows the same.
In this case, prison officials forcibly shaved the head of Damon Landor, a practicing Rastafarian who was incarcerated at the time. Having his hair long is part of his religious practice, and the violation of his religious freedom right is undisputed. But, lower courts said he was not entitled to monetary damages against the individuals who violated his religious freedom.
Much of the courtroom conversation was focused on the text of the statute and the context of congressional authority, including the ability of Congress to spend money and attach certain requirements to it under the Spending Clause of the Constitution. In this case, the federal funding to state prisons comes with the requirement to abide by RLUIPA, and there was discussion about what that requires in terms of notice.
BJC chaired the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion in the 1990s, which specifically urged Congress to pass RFRA and RLUIPA, and we continue to defend the applicability of those laws in numerous cases. In this case, BJC joined a friend-of-the-court brief with a diverse group — including the Christian Legal Society, the ACLU, and the Alliance Defending Freedom — to argue that the legal language clearly authorizes damages against the officials in their individual capacities under RLUIPA.
Read a preview of the case in Holly Hollman’s column, published by Baptist News Global.
Read Holly’s review of oral arguments in an analysis published by Baptist News Global.
You can listen to a podcast on the oral arguments! Click here to access Episode 5 of Season 7 of the Respecting Religion podcast, as Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman review key moments and discuss what’s at stake.
This article originally appeared in the winter 2025 edition of Report from the Capital. You canview it as a PDFor read adigital flip-through edition.
