Supreme Court skeptical of Rastafarian man's religious rights claim

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

35% : WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday appeared unlikely to allow a devout Rastafarian to bring a damages claim against Louisiana prison officials who cut his dreadlocks in violation of his religious rights.Based on Monday's argument, a majority of the justices did not appear to think Congress specifically allowed for state officials to be sued under a federal law called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA.The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, is often solicitous toward religious claims, although the bulk of recent cases have involved cases brought by conservative Christians.Prior to the 2020 incident at the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center, Damon Landor had not cut his hair for almost 20 years, following a practice known as the Nazarite vow.Landor’s lawyers are asking the Supreme Court to rule that damages should be allowed under RLUIPA, citing a ruling in 2020 that said damages are available under a similar law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.But Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga appeared to find a receptive audience among the conservative justices for his argument that the outcome is not determined by how the court ruled in the 2020 case in part because that dispute involved federal, not state, officials.Several justices focused on the lack of specific language in the law to allow for damages claims against officials in states that have received federal funding."Congress could easily have written a statute that does this," Justice Neil Gorsuch said, adding, "it didn't do that."If the court allowed such claims under RLUIPA it could lead to similar lawsuits against officials in states that receive funding under many other federal laws, he added.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.