Damon Landor’s Fight for Religious Freedom Reaches the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of the United States is set to decide a pivotal case involving Damon Landor, a devout member of the Rastafari faith whose nearly two-decade-long dreadlocks were forcibly shaved by prison guards in Louisiana. Landor entered the system in 2020 after being sentenced for drug possession. While serving time at the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center, he presented officials with a court ruling recognizing the religious significance of his hairstyle under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Instead of recognizing the documented protection, a guard reportedly discarded the paperwork and Landor was restrained and shaved.
Although the lower courts expressed strong condemnation of his treatment, they ruled that RLUIPA does not permit individual state officials to be sued for monetary damages. The central question now before the Supreme Court is whether federal law allows Landor to hold individual prison officials personally liable for violating his religious rights while incarcerated. If the justices conclude that personal claims for damages are not permitted, inmates could lose a pathway to compensation when their religious exercise is infringed in state institutions.
Supporters of Landor’s position point to the similarity between RLUIPA and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a statute under which the Supreme Court previously allowed individual lawsuits for damages. They argue that permitting only state-level liability leaves powerful prison officials free from consequences when basic religious rights are violated. On the other hand, the state of Louisiana acknowledges the injustice in Landor’s case but warns that expanding liability to individuals could impose huge burdens on state institutions and open the door to sweeping litigation.
While the outcome remains uncertain, a decision in Landor’s favor would broaden the reach of religious rights for incarcerated individuals. A ruling against him, however, could sharply limit remedies available when prisons override faith-based practices. A judgment is expected by summer 2026.
