Supreme Court: Rights Violated, No Consequences

Facade of a United States courthouse with an American flag in the foreground

A Supreme Court ruling just told Americans that prison guards can violate a man’s religious freedom and face no personal consequences.

Story Snapshot

High Court says a Rastafarian whose knee-length dreadlocks were shaved can’t seek money from the guards.
Every court agrees his religious rights were violated, but the law still leaves him without real justice.
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) is now a “rights without remedies” law for inmates.
Conservatives face a hard question: will Congress fix this gap in protection for religious liberty?

Rastafarian Inmate’s Hair Shaved, Rights Violated, But No Damages Allowed

Five years ago in Louisiana, prison guards strapped Damon Landor, a devout Rastafarian, into a chair and shaved off the knee-length dreadlocks he had grown over nearly twenty years as part of his faith.^[5] Before cutting his hair, guards tossed aside official paperwork that said prisons must allow dreadlocks for Rastafarians.^[3] The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said the treatment Landor received was egregious and clearly violated his religious rights, yet it still ruled he could not seek money from the officials.^[5]

Landor turned to a federal law called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, passed in 2000 to protect religious liberty for inmates when states take federal prison money.^[17] He sued the state and the guards, saying forcing him to cut his dreadlocks substantially burdened his religious exercise, which is exactly what the statute forbids.^[16] A federal district judge dismissed his damages claims, ruling that RLUIPA does not let private people seek money from officials in their personal capacity, even when those officials violate religious freedom.^[13]

Supreme Court’s 6–3 Ruling: Rights But No Real Remedy

The Supreme Court took Landor’s case to decide one key question: can prisoners get monetary damages from individual guards under RLUIPA when their religious rights are violated?^[5] In a 6–3 decision, the Court’s majority said no. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that RLUIPA is a “spending contract” between Washington and the states, not a direct promise from individual employees.^[8] Because the guards never agreed to that funding deal, the Court said they cannot be held personally liable for money damages under that statute.^[8]

This ruling followed earlier decisions limiting damages under RLUIPA. In Sossamon v. Texas, the Court held that state sovereign immunity blocks money damages against states under this law, meaning “appropriate relief” does not include damages from the state itself.^[16] Landor tried a different route, pointing to the Court’s 2020 decision under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, RLUIPA’s “sister” statute, where Muslim men were allowed to sue federal officials individually for damages after being placed on the no-fly list.^[13] But the Court declined to extend that logic to prisoners’ claims under RLUIPA.^[8]

Trump Administration and Religious Liberty Groups Backed Landor

Landor did not stand alone. President Donald Trump’s administration supported his claim, telling the Court that RLUIPA “clearly” should allow damages against officials who burden religious exercise.^[2] The Solicitor General argued that damages are closely tied to the federal government’s interest in making sure prisons that take federal funds do not violate religious rights.^[4] The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty also filed a friend-of-the-court brief, warning that without damages, RLUIPA’s protections become hollow because officials can violate rights with no personal accountability.^[5]

Despite this support, the justices’ conservative majority was skeptical. During arguments, several noted that every federal appeals court to consider the issue had already said RLUIPA does not provide an individual-damages remedy, and they stressed that spending power laws require clear notice if officials can be sued personally.^[6] In the end, the Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit, cementing a nationwide rule: state employees may not be held liable in their personal capacities for money damages under RLUIPA, even when their actions are condemned as egregious rights violations.^[10]

A Gap in Protection for Nearly Two Million Inmates’ Religious Rights

Legal scholars say Landor’s case shows a troubling pattern: courts recognize that a prisoner’s religious freedom was violated but still deny a meaningful remedy.^[12] Under RLUIPA, inmates have stronger formal protections on paper than under the bare text of the First Amendment, yet they often can only get forward-looking orders or policy changes, not compensation when guards cross the line.^[17] For nearly two million incarcerated Americans, that means a guard can shred religious rights today and walk away without paying a personal price under this statute.^[6]

No, court records show Damon Landor was convicted of possession of methamphetamine, cocaine, and amphetamines (plus misdemeanor marijuana). He served ~5 months on the drug charges. Rastafarian practice centers cannabis as sacrament, but the other substances do not align with it.…

— Grok (@grok) June 23, 2026

For conservatives who care deeply about religious liberty, limited government, and real accountability, this ruling raises a clear challenge. If Congress meant RLUIPA to protect faith behind bars, then lawmakers may need to amend the statute to spell out that individual officials can be sued for money when they deliberately violate religious rights.^[1] Until that happens, inmates like Landor can be told “Yes, your rights were violated,” while the people who shaved his head face no direct consequences under federal law.