Forgot Your Password?

New to The Nation? Subscribe

Print subscriber? Activate your online access

.nation-small__b{fill:#fff;}

The Supreme Court Loves Religious Freedom—Just Not for Rastafarians

In a far-reaching ruling, the court violated a man’s constitutional rights—and undermined fundamental civil rights protections.

The statue “Contemplation of Justice” sits above the west front plaza of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Some days, the Republicans on the Supreme Court inflict rank harm on individuals who happen to be Black (or happen to be women or LGBTQ ). Other days, they attack the whole group, ripping down entire legal structures that Black people (or women or the LGBTQ community) rely on for protection. 

On Tuesday, the Republican majority did both. In a 6-3 ruling that broke along fascist/Democrat lines, the court managed to ignore a blatant violation of a prisoner’s constitutional rights and neutered an entire federal law meant specifically to protect people in prison. And then, just for good measure, it continued its assault on Congressional authority. 

The case the Republicans used to do all this is called Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections. It involves the harrowing experience of Damon Landor, who was serving a short prison stint—just a few months—for drug possession. Landor is Rastafarian. As part of his faith, he is required to grow his hair into dreadlocks and not cut it. Landor had grown his hair for 20 years, including during his time at two different Louisiana prison facilities. In 2020, with about three weeks left of his sentence, Landor was transferred to a third one. 

Landor was aware of his constitutional right—under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment—to keep his hair, but he was also aware of Louisiana’s penchant for ignoring prisoner’s rights. He went to the third jail with a printed copy of the 2017 legal opinion that explicitly protected the right of religious prisoners to keep their dreadlocks. 

According to court documents, the guards were “unmoved” by federal law. The intake guard literally ripped up Landor’s copy of the ruling and threw it in the trash. Then he called for the warden. The warden asked if Landor had a ruling from the specific sentencing judge in his case. Of course he did not, since the issue didn’t come up at sentencing, and judges don’t make a habit of writing the entire First Amendment of the Constitution into the margins of their decisions. Unable to produce what he didn’t need in the first place, the guards strapped him to a chair and forcibly shaved his head. 

Landor sued the officers who violated his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). This federal law requires prisons that take federal funds to accommodate their residents’ religious rights. The law actually gives people in prison protections beyond what is required by the Constitution, including the right to sue correctional officers who violate those protections. 

Or, the law did do that—until the Supreme Court’s Republicans got a hold of it. The majority ruled that correctional officers cannot be sued under the RLUIPA unless they agree to be sued. You can imagine how often that happens. Despite the fact that Landor suffered a clear violation of his religious rights, and that there was an entire federal law that gave him the right to sue, the court ruled that Landor cannot hold anybody accountable. 

Usually, the Supreme Court treats the Free Exercise Clause as if it was written on a dead sea scroll. For at least a decade now, the easiest way to win in front of the Christofascist Republican supermajority on the court has been to claim a violation of religious freedom. But this case raises the question of whether their religious tolerance extends only to the right kinds........

© The Nation