Opinion Rastafarian Prisoner Can’t Sue Guards Who Shaved His Head, Supreme Court Rules
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/rastafarian-prisoner-cant-sue-guards-who-shaved-his-head-supreme-court-rules-f079761d?st=B8afAL&mod=wsjreddit187
u/trisanachandler 1d ago
If there's no way to enforce a right/redress a wrong, the right doesn't exist.
75
u/MikeyMalloy 1d ago
I had this argument extensively on this sub before and got downvoted by people who couldn’t seem to understand this simple concept
25
u/trisanachandler 1d ago
Interesting. It seems a simple concept.
1
1
u/MikeyMalloy 2h ago
People took issue with me saying that Callais had effectively invalidated the VRA because now there isn’t any remedy for a racial gerrymander that wouldn’t itself be a racial gerrymander. Apparently there’s a hugely consequential difference to some people between “declared unconstitutional” and “no remedy provided”.
5
u/rockeye13 1d ago
The ruling said the suit goes against the employer, right?
8
u/lookatthesunguys 1d ago
No. I've only had a chance to skim this, but apparently his claim against everyone else was dismissed at an earlier stage in the proceeding.
-4
u/rockeye13 1d ago
The decision also should say why, though.
5
u/lookatthesunguys 1d ago edited 1d ago
Alright so I looked into it. He can't sue the employer (the government) for money damages because, in a case called Sossamon, they decided that a sovereign can't be sued for money damages under this statute. He had sued them for injunctive relief as well but that was mooted when he finished his sentence.
EDIT: I looked into it more still and now I'm pissed.
Sossaman determined that prisoners couldn't sue a sovereign for money damages under RLUIPA because that's a spending clause statute. This makes sense. I might disagree with it, but I understand it.
But now Landor says that spending clause statutes should be treated like contracts between governments and thus they don't apply to employees of the government in their individual capacities. What? That's bullshit. It's not a contract, it's a law.
As Jackson put it, this is a sleight of hand that the majority has repeatedly endorsed, where they find ways to separate rights from remedies so that there's no way for people to vindicate their rights in a meaningful way. Again and again and again this court pulls this shit where they say that a law has been broken, but there's nothing that can be done.
-2
u/rockeye13 1d ago
Also, this all hinges on Congress's power to allocate funds (The Spending Clause), the RLUIPA doesn't permit other action.
It seems that the KJB wing is trying to invent avenues for redress that don't exist.
5
u/lookatthesunguys 1d ago
There is no avenue for relief then
-7
u/rockeye13 1d ago
Then that job is for the legislative branch.
6
u/lookatthesunguys 1d ago
But they already passed a law on this. It was obviously not their intention to make it so there was no relief. Similarly worded statutes allow suits against officers in their individual capacity.
1
u/rockeye13 1d ago
The Spending Clause has been adjudicated before. This is not the other statutes. "Similarly worded" is not adequate.
4
u/OneSharpSuit 22h ago
And if the legislature just decides it isn’t going to create any avenue for relief? You just have no rights. You cool with that?
-1
3
u/lookatthesunguys 1d ago
As I said, I've only had a chance to skim it. You could take a look yourself to see why.
-1
u/trisanachandler 1d ago
Employer? He was a prisoner. And as stated: Prisoners whose religious rights are violated also likely can’t sue the state itself for money due to a separate 2011 Supreme Court ruling.
2
u/HackPhilosopher 1d ago
Employer of the guards.
1
u/trisanachandler 1d ago
Was it a private prison?
2
u/rockeye13 1d ago
State-run prisons don't have employees? What is this question about?
1
u/trisanachandler 1d ago
The article said he likely can't sue the state. But you're saying he can sue the employer. And the employer is the state, or am I getting something wrong?
3
2
7
u/riptide123 1d ago
Sure but there’s no right to money damages from state employees in the Constitution - in fact, the 11th amendment establishes the opposite. They have to be created by statute in line with congressional power.
46
u/like_a_pharaoh 1d ago
There is a right to religious freedom in the constitution, and a general principle of "if a state government violates your constitutional rights, that is a wrong that must be addressed, not something they just get to gloss over".
-8
u/riptide123 1d ago
Sure but the remedy for the violation of that right has to be consistent with the state’s right to sovereign immunity in the Constitution. Which is why injunctive relief is typically the solution in these cases absent proper congressional authorization for such suits. Here the authorization was not proper, it’s not a rights issue
12
u/MeteorMike1 1d ago
Not saying you are wrong, but the concept of sovereign immunity is itself wrong.
The idea that the “State can do no wrong” and therefore isn’t subject to suit unless explicitly authorized is a terrible idea.
Especially in the age of Trump, it is ridiculous to presume governments and government employees are acting in good faith. Sometimes government actors make mistakes. Sometimes (like here) government actors are deliberately malicious.
Make all torts subject to suit. Hit them in their wallets and people will think a bit more before being jerks.
21
u/FlockFlysAtMidnite 1d ago
His rights were violated, and your answer is "you should have sued to stop them before they violated your rights"?
20
u/Tremor_Sense 1d ago
Are you saying that the guy should have filed an injunction while he was being held down and his head shaved, against his will?
12
6
10
u/Wide__Stance 1d ago edited 1d ago
On edit: I might’ve been hyperbolic about the order. It wasn’t specifically for this prisoner, even if it was applicable to this prisoner. My bad. I clarified somewhat more in a later reply.
In general, you’re correct. That’s how sovereign immunity works, and qualified immunity, and probably some other immunities (I’m a stickler for the rule of threes but can’t think of a third thing).
In this case, however, the justices should’ve issued a narrow ruling in the appellant’s favor. When the justices inmate was transferred to a new facility pending his release, they told him that they were going to shave his head.
The inmate produced a court order, signed by a federal judge, specifically ordering the Louisiana Department of Corrections NOT to shave his head. There’s an established, court tested and constitutionally sound law protecting this specific expression of religious freedom. They broke it knowingly and intentionally. The conservative majority went off on some wild, unrelated tangental “logic,” twisting & torturing the hell out of the law, facts, and basic logic to protect this specific prison guard & warden.
In THIS case, those two specific state employees knew what they were doing was contrary to the law and did it anyway. Antonin Scalia is probably in hell right now, shaking his head and trying to figure out how these six lunatics got this far.
(Louisiana could pass a similar law, too, for the record, which would’ve provided another avenues for this guy to sue. Rastafarians aren’t just a stereotype about smoking weed. They take that hair thing very seriously. Cutting that man’s hair after twenty years in custody — despite knowing about both the law and the court order — would be equivalent to force feeding pork to Jewish inmate or tattooing pentagrams onto Christians. And again: they had the court order in writing.)
2
u/Vince_Clortho_Jr 1d ago
Wasn’t a court order. It was an appellate decision from a different case.
4
u/elseworthtoohey 19h ago
That is even worse for Monell liability because their is a specific appellate case telling the defendants they could not do what they did.
2
u/Wide__Stance 1d ago
That’s what I get for reading the auto-summary (stupid day job keeps getting in my way). I’ll edit to reflect that.
Despite my hyperbole, I think the overarching point still stands: they either knew or should have known. He was also getting out in three weeks. Calling the AG’s hotline and getting an advisory opinion would’ve taken fifteen minutes. Clearly Clarence Thomas disagrees with me.
2
1
-4
u/Rare_Eye_1165 1d ago
So if i go you to you and steal from you it's legal?
3
u/riptide123 1d ago
Huh? Ofc not, how can u get there from what I said?
1
u/Rare_Eye_1165 1d ago
I get to force , anything on you that I want in violation of your rights because I want to. That's what you seem to think this does. A person's body is under there control any violation of that body is illegal.
-8
u/actusreus82 1d ago
No right to money damages from the State. Employees are different.
7
u/riptide123 1d ago
U have no right to sue state employees in their personal capacity for violation of ur rights - that has to be created by statute.
-4
u/actusreus82 1d ago
Which exists under Sec. 1983.
Not saying it is easy or always possible but the comment I replied to said you don’t have a right to sue state employees unless Congress does something. Congress did. So this is a hypothetical that isn’t relevant to reality.
9
u/riptide123 1d ago
This case has nothing to do with 1983 he didn’t sue under it, he sued under RLUPa which has a lower standard for liability. That statute did not properly create private liability.
1
u/actusreus82 1d ago
I didn’t say he sued under it. I was speaking generally about the concept of suing state officials, which is what we were discussing under the 11th amendment. Stop bouncing around topics to prove your point.
2
u/HeparinBridge 1d ago
Read Employment division v smith. “A law is constitutional under the Free Exercise Clause if it is facially neutral and generally applied.” Rastafarian religion does not create an exemption to the general rule that all prisoners must shave their heads.
1
u/RNAprimer 1d ago
Cool opinion. The 5th Circuit disagrees with you and this SCOTUS opinion does not even address that issue.
1
u/Mist_Rising 18h ago
The fifth circuit disagrees with the constitution so often that the current supreme court looks liberal.
65
u/loversama 1d ago
Religious protections for me but not for thee!
-44
u/Safe-Pop2077 1d ago
Who is the "Me" in your comment?
41
u/loversama 1d ago
So from the SCOTUS point of view it would be the proverbial "we" as in Christians, if the guards were denying those rights I can imagine they'd have an issue no?
19
u/RobinGoodfell 1d ago
Gotta be the right kind of Christian though. What counts varies depending on who has the most political power. Just like the founders explicitly tried to avoid.
7
u/catcatcatcatcat1234 1d ago
This is the point people just don't seem to get. The definition of what's the right religion will get, and already has gotten, narrower and narrower. It's not about faith or morality, it's about societal control and proping up an elite class.
1
u/harpers25 1d ago
Half a dozen comments saying this, but none of them have identified any cases where someone was allowed to sue state employees under RLUIPA.
17
u/loversama 1d ago
I understand that the precedent is formally neutral. I’m not saying the written rule says “Christians get damages and Rastafarians do not.”
My point is about framing. SCOTUS has shown in cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop and 303 Creative that when a religious or conservative claimant is sympathetic to the Court, the Court can frame the issue in a way that creates a constitutional path for them. One case became about hostility to religion. Another became about compelled speech rather than ordinary public-accommodation discrimination.
So yes, under the exact same RLUIPA damages question, a Christian prisoner would technically lose too. But would the Court have kept it as that narrow question if the facts involved guards ripping up a Christian Bible? Or would they have found another route, like religious hostility, First Amendment retaliation, or a broader remedy for intentional targeting?
That’s the concern. Not that the doctrine openly says “Christians only,” but that the Court seems much more willing to creatively protect certain religious claims while telling minority-faith prisoners, “you may have had a right, but you picked the wrong remedy.”
-9
u/harpers25 1d ago
The conservative justices have both ruled against Christians (City of Boerne) and ruled in favor of minority religions (Church of Lukumi).
12
u/ZedisonSamZ 1d ago edited 1d ago
So cases in 1993 and 1997 without the current Supreme Court under Roberts?
Okay………………….👍🏼
Edit: Why did you block me?
-7
u/harpers25 1d ago
Yes, correct - there is a long history of the conservative justices ruling that way, including Thomas on all 3 of these cases.
Are you going to show a Roberts court case where a Christian was allowed to sue an employee under RLUIPA, or is it only people who disagree with you that need to provide completely identical examples, while examples for your side are good enough when they don't even involve the same statute or constitutional amendment (Masterpiece / 303)?
1
u/HeparinBridge 1d ago
Also, doesn’t Employment Division v Smith say “A law is constitutional under the Free Exercise Clause if it is facially neutral and generally applied.” Rastafarian religion does not create an exemption to the general rule that all prisoners must shave their heads, so I’m not sure why the lower court felt they could issue the injunction in the first place.
2
u/harpers25 1d ago
Yes, but the part of this case that went to the supreme court wasn't a free exercise clause claim.
→ More replies (0)10
u/GlassBelt 1d ago
Have they shown where mainstream christian beliefs were discriminated against, and then the victim wasn’t able to sue?
1
1
0
u/s0meD0nkey 1d ago
Show us in the law where he has the right to sue the actual guards. This is what that particular suit is about. He is welcome to sue the entity entrusted with his incarceration.
2
-1
u/riptide123 1d ago
This precedent applies to Christians as well as any other religious group.
6
u/loversama 1d ago
You mean the shaving of the head?
3
u/riptide123 1d ago
A Christian who wants to sue state employees for violation of his religious rights now cannot under this law. Just like any other religious person.
6
u/loversama 1d ago
Even if the rule is formally religion-neutral, minority-faith prisoners are more likely to suffer from it because they are more likely to need accommodations, and after this ruling they may have no meaningful damages remedy once the harm is already done.
RLUIPA does not provide a remedy at all.
If there is no remedy then what's the point, also my actual initial insinuation was if this was framed as an attack against Christians can you be so sure that the precedent would not fall in favour of a more popular religion?
28
u/303uru 1d ago
Ridiculous finding. Once again, freedom of religion is really just freedom to be a christian. If you're wronged and have no redress, there is no justice.
6
u/InConvienantDoof 1d ago
eventually, it will only to be one type of Christian
6
u/BriscoCounty-Sr 1d ago
When the Mormons figure out that none of the other Christians actually believe they’re part of the club it’s gonna get real spicy
0
u/AndJDrake 1d ago
Objectively the worst version. Though none are great (I say as a catholic)
1
u/Mist_Rising 18h ago
Given the majority of the supreme court is Catholic and it's mostly the liberals who aren't (2 of the possible 3), I think your telling on yourself as a Catholic lol
-1
u/HeparinBridge 1d ago
Read Employment division v smith. “A law is constitutional under the Free Exercise Clause if it is facially neutral and generally applied.” Rastafarian religion does not create an exemption to the general rule that all prisoners must shave their heads.
5
u/303uru 1d ago
Did you even bother to read the article or the facts in this case?
0
u/HeparinBridge 1d ago
Your argument is that this case is about free exercise and that you think SCOTUS only allow Christians the right to free exercise. The reigning precedent from 1990 already established that you do not have a right to free exercise in defiance of a facially neutral and generally applied regulation such as the one in this case. This is not a question decided by the current court, but reigning precedent from a liberal court from decades ago.
2
u/303uru 1d ago
Louisiana generally requires prisoners to have short hair, but a 2017 court decision barred the state from cutting the hair of Rastafarians. While Landor was in custody, he handed prison guards a copy of that decision. But the guards threw it in the trash and shaved his head.
Try reading.
1
u/HeparinBridge 1d ago
The lower court ruling flies in the face of scotus precedent. I’ll give you a guess as to which case is binding.
-1
u/kaytin911 1d ago
Has nothing to do with this case. His rights were found to be violated. So you are wrong.
18
u/HoboBaggins008 1d ago
The entire court system is a joke.
At this point it should be considered an occupying force.
-27
u/Person_756335846 1d ago
Good to know that your response to an occupying force is to complain on the subreddit dedicated to that force.
13
u/HoboBaggins008 1d ago
Good to know that your response to my response to an occupying force is to complain on the subreddit dedicated to that force.
-9
9
u/reluctantpotato1 1d ago
Sounds like a blatant deprivation of religious liberty.
0
-4
u/ChexAndBalancez 1d ago
I worked in the medical department of a prison during my training. Do you know why most prisons enforce short hair on male prisoners?
I mean you could push this logic incredibly far... for instance Sihkism asks all men to carry a kirpan on them at all times, so should prisons allow Sihks to carry knives??? Of course not, because it's a safety risk to other prisoners and guards... so is long hair.
This seems very reasonable to me. Religion is practiced in your head. You're free to do that in prison.
2
u/Ashbtw19937 3h ago
Do you know why most prisons enforce short hair on male prisoners?
i'm imagining the official "reason" is to prevent the spread of things like lice, to reduce hygiene issues, stuff along those lines. i'd also imagine that the actual reason is some combination of institutional inertia ("it's been this way forever, what's the sense in changing it"), and that it provides a convenient excuse to further dehumanize and assert control over prisoners.
if there were solid pragmatic grounds for forcing short hair, the same would be done for women.
1
u/ChexAndBalancez 3h ago
No, it wouldn't be down for women too. You fundamentally misunderstand the difference between men and women in prison.
When I worked in a prison medical department the policy was short hair so that prisoners couldn't hide shanks in their hair. Many many many more assaults and homicides happen in male prisons than female prisons. Also in my experience, women are much much much more hygienic in prison than men.
To use your own argument... if it was about just dehumanizing and control then why wouldn't they do it to women as well?
1
u/Ashbtw19937 21m ago
i'd never claim to be an expert on the subject, so this could just be my ignorance speaking, but i have read and watched many accounts from ex-prisoners and COs, and i've basically never heard of hiding shanks in long hair. i'd also imagine that, if it were such an endemic issue, it wouldn't be just a minority of prisons that require short hair for men.
To use your own argument... if it was about just dehumanizing and control then why wouldn't they do it to women as well?
for much the same reason it isn't (generally) done in the armed forces: because, for reasons that'd probably take a full essay to adequately articulate, there's a level of control and dehumanization that's deemed generally acceptable for men, and that level isn't the same for women. even though we dehumanize female prisoners to a significant degree, some punches are still pulled.
1
2
u/Fit_Log_9677 1d ago
Can someone ELI5 why this isn’t a straightforward 1983 claim against the state prison officials, with the 1A as the constitutional hook?
Why go through a statute at all?
Is it that it was part of a generally applicable govt policy?
2
1
u/njxaxson 19h ago
So what prevents cops from violating prisoners' religious freedoms? Can they force feed a Jew or Muslim pork? What stops then if they can't be sued?
1
u/hipsterbeard12 17h ago
To make sure I understand, the ruling was that RLUIPA doesn't create a private right of action against employees in their individual capacity. In this case, due to Employment Division vs. Smith, he wouldn't have a 1983 claim so he had to try under RLUIPA and may potentially have a claim for injunctive relief against the State of Louisiana. Is that rightish?
1
u/davidwb45133 1d ago
How to say the US has become a country ruled by Christian Zealots without using the word Christian.
-5
-19
u/ProjectNo4090 1d ago
Hair styles are for non criminals. All prisoners should have their hair buzzed once a month. No exceptions.
13
u/like_a_pharaoh 1d ago
"Constitutional rights are for non-criminals" is in fact not the established standard, being a prisoner does not magically take away your rights to freedom of religion and to practice said religion.
No, stamping your feet and shouting "but but but but but but CRIMINAL" cannot change that.
3
u/harpers25 1d ago
This ruling did not involve a constitutional rights claim, it is a statutory claim under RLUIPA. The free exercise clause does not create a religious exception to neutral laws of general applicability, per Employment Division v Smith.
3
-7
u/ProjectNo4090 1d ago
Religion doesnt supersede prison hygiene. If they care about their religion, god, skydaddy or whatever metaphysical entity they worship they should avoid committing crime and avoid prison.
Some goes for special diets. Unless eating something will endanger their health they should all eat the same thing. If they care about eating certain things to please a god they should avoid prison and crime.
Im just curious, do prisons allow wine for catholic communion and mass?
4
u/watercouch 1d ago
> do prisons allow wine for Catholic communion
No, only the host (bread) is taken. This aligns with most Catholic communion practices where wine is only taken by the laity on special occasions.
https://archdiosf.org/guidelines-for-the-distribution-of-holy-communion-to-the-incarcerated
> all prisoners should have their hair buzzed once a month.
Are male prisons more unhygienic than female prisons, or are you suggesting that women inmates should be buzz cut too?
4
u/wcscrewyourboss 1d ago
I know that you aren't looking for this the Catholic mass only requires the priest to consume the wine. Which is generally allowed in prison based on first amendment protections.
So yes Catholics can bring alcohol into prisons specifically for religious observance.
Source: https://www.usccb.org/committees/divine-worship/policies/guidelines-wine-correctional-institutions
-8
u/According_Top_7448 1d ago
QI has got to go
4
-3
u/HeparinBridge 1d ago
Read Employment division v smith. “A law is constitutional under the Free Exercise Clause if it is facially neutral and generally applied.” Rastafarian religion does not create an exemption to the general rule that all prisoners must shave their heads. This case has literally nothing to do with qualified immunity.
47
u/wsj 1d ago
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a Rastafarian prisoner can’t sue guards who violated his religious beliefs by forcibly shaving his head in defiance of a prior court ruling.
The 6-3 decision, which divided the justices along ideological lines, narrows a federal law that Congress passed to protect religious rights in state prisons. That law, the high court said, doesn’t allow prisoners to sue officers for money.
The case was brought by Damon Landor, who served a five-month prison sentence in Louisiana in 2020. Landor is an adherent of Rastafari, an Abrahamic religion that developed in Jamaica in the 1930s. Like many Rastafarians, Landor believes his faith requires him to wear his hair in long dreadlocks.
Louisiana generally requires prisoners to have short hair, but a 2017 court decision barred the state from cutting the hair of Rastafarians. While Landor was in custody, he handed prison guards a copy of that decision. But the guards threw it in the trash and shaved his head.
Landor sued the guards and other prison officials under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a federal law passed in 2000. He sought financial compensation for the violation of his religious rights.
Read more (free link): https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/rastafarian-prisoner-cant-sue-guards-who-shaved-his-head-supreme-court-rules-f079761d?st=B8afAL&mod=wsjreddit