The Supreme Court ruled Damon Landor, a practicing Rastafarian, may proceed with his suit against the Louisiana Department of Corrections for cutting his locs.
Landor’s initial suit was thrown out of Louisiana’s 5th Circuit Court. However, the Supreme Court believes there is merit in his appeal. The court ruled that hearing the case “vividly illustrates the importance of a damage remedy to protecting religious exercise.”
Landor is an observant of the Rastafarian religion. A tenet of the faith, “the Nazarite Vow,” frowns upon cutting one’s hair, specifically locs.
Three weeks before Landor was scheduled to be released from jail, after serving the majority of his 5-month sentence, he was transferred to Raymond Laborde Correctional Center. Upon his arrival, the Raymond Laborde officers attempted to cut his hair.
The facility’s cleanliness and grooming code required the removal of the Rastafarian’s hair. However, Landor made clear that the offense is protected under the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Officers ignored the paperwork, throwing it in the trash, and proceeded to shave Landor’s head bald.The state of Louisiana acknowledges it was a violation of Landor’s rights. Yet, the judicial body stopped short of allowing the case to proceed. According to the petition, the 5th Circuit asserts, “individual-capacity damages are not available.” Landor would need to seek recompense from Louisiana Corrections.
Still, the state believes that since it has adjusted its policies, no intervention by the courts is needed. Moreover, the Louisiana Department of Corrections minimized the harm inflicted on Landor.
“There is no indication that Defendants’ conduct and/or policies, as they impacted Plaintiff’s exercise of his religious beliefs, resulted in a sufficiently serious deprivation of a basic human need,” the state’s response read.
Landor rejects the notion that he will receive no compensation for the harm caused. His brief states as much, stressing that government officials should not be able to violate laws without consequence.
“No relief is not “appropriate relief” in the ‘context of suits against Government officials,”’ the suit asserted.
RELATED CONTENT: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Slams ‘Narrow-Minded’ Supreme Court For Catering To ‘Moneyed Interests’