Latest news with #DamonLandor
USA Today
02-08-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
From marginal religious groups to mainstream Christians: Why some see a shift in Supreme Court cases
The court's first case involving a Rastafarian highlights the role smaller religious groups have played in the court's history, even as more cases come from mainstream Christian groups. WASHINGTON – There have been no shortage of religious groups seeking help from the Supreme Court in recent years, including three cases last term that involved the Catholic Church. But the religion at the center of a case set for after the summer is not nearly as well represented in the population - or in the courtroom. In fact, it appears to be the first time the Supreme Court will hear an appeal from a Rastafarian. Damon Landor said his religious rights were violated when his dreadlocks were forcibly shaved by Louisiana prison guards. More: Supreme Court to decide if prison officials can be sued over inmates' religious rights Handcuffed to a chair while his dreadlocks were shaved off Landor had shown prison officials a copy of a court ruling that dreadlocks grown for religious reasons should be accommodated. But an intake guard threw the ruling in the trash and Landor was handcuffed to a chair while his knee-length locks were shaved off. The justices will decide whether Landor can sue the guards for compensation under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Landor – whose appeal was backed by more than 30 religious groups and the Justice Department − argues that monetary damages are often the only way to hold prison officials accountable when religious rights are violated. Legal experts on religion cases expect the court will side with the Rastafarian. That would be consistent not just with the high success rate of appeals the court agrees to hear from religious people, but also with the role smaller religious groups have played in the court's history. Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists Most of the religious cases Richard Garnett teaches in his classes at the University of Notre Dame Law School involve smaller religious communities, including Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists. 'The story of religious freedom in America has developed through cases involving members of minority religions,' Garnett said. Other court watchers, however, say that was more true in the past than it is now. 'That's kind of a legacy view,' said Carl Esbeck, an expert on religious liberty at the University of Missouri School of Law. In fact, a 2022 study found that; since 2005, the winning religion in most Supreme Court religious cases was a mainstream Christian organization. In the past, by contrast, pro-religion outcomes more frequently favored minority or marginal religious organizations, according to the analysis by Lee Epstein at Washington University in St. Louis and Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School. 'The religion clauses of the First Amendment were once understood to provide modest but meaningful protection for non-mainstream religions from discrimination by governments that favored mainstream Christian organizations, practices, or values,' they wrote. Similarly, traditionalist Christians – such as orthodox Catholics and Baptists – had been significantly less successful than other religious groups in getting accommodations from lower federal courts from 1986 to 1995, according to a study by Michael Heise of Cornell Law School and Gregory Sisk of the University of St. Thomas School of Law. But from 2006 to 2015, their disadvantage 'appeared to fade into statistical insignificance,' they wrote in 2022. The Supreme Court, they said, 'appears to be setting the stage for a more equitable and expansive protection of religious liberty.' Colorado and the gay wedding cake debate Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, agrees that the court has taken an expansive view of religious liberty protections. But he says it hasn't always been equitable. In 2018, the court said Colorado had shown "religious hostility" to a baker who didn't want to make a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple. More: How a Supreme Court case about a gay couple's wedding cake got caught up in Israeli judicial reform But that same month, Mach said, the court upheld President Donald Trump's travel ban 'even in the face of Trump's repeated unambiguous statements condemning Islam and Muslims.' More broadly, he said, the court's 'general hostility to the separation of church and state' erodes protections for minority groups promised by the First Amendment's prohibition against the government favoring a specific religion or favoring religion in general. 'Built into that structure is necessarily a protection against the imposition by the majority of its favored religious doctrine,' he said. In February, President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at 'Eradicating anti-Christian Bias' and calling on agencies to eliminate the "anti-Christian weaponization of government." The administration cited that order when telling federal employees in a July 28 memo they may discuss and promote their religious beliefs in the workplace. More: Supreme Court blocks Catholic charter school in big setback for religion advocates Ruling for Amish built on to benefit other religions In June, the Supreme Court built upon a 1972 ruling for the Amish as it affirmed the religious rights of parents to remove their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being used. When deciding more than 50 years ago that Amish parents did not have to keep their children in school until age 16 as Wisconsin required, the court said those parents had an argument 'that probably few other religious groups or sects could make.' But Justice Samuel Alito left no doubt about the broader significance of Wisconsin v. Yoder in the 6-3 opinion he authored in June that sided with parents from a variety of religious backgrounds − including Roman Catholic but also Muslim, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and other faiths − who objected to the LGBTQ+ storybooks used in Maryland school district. 'Yoder is an important precedent of this Court, and it cannot be breezily dismissed as a special exception granted to one particular religious minority,' Alito wrote. More: Supreme Court sides with Maryland parents who want to avoid LGBTQ+ books in public schools In a 2020 speech to the conservative Federalist Society, Alito had warned that 'religious liberty is in danger of becoming a second-class right.' He listed examples of cases he'd judged about religious minorities, including the rights of Muslim police officers to have beards, of a Jewish prisoner to organize a Torah study group and whether a Native American could keep a bear for religious services. The baker who didn't want to make a cake for a same-sex wedding and Catholic nuns who objected to insurance coverage for contraceptives 'deserve no less protection,' Alito said about more recent cases. More: Supreme Court sides with Catholic Charities in case about tax exemptions and religion `Clear pattern of preference for religious groups' Cornell Law School Professor Nelson Tebbe said more of the claims about religious freedom started to come from mainstream majority Christian groups as political polarization increased and as the gay rights movement picked up speed. 'Suddenly, civil libertarian groups who had been on the side of minority religions…started to realize that civil rights laws could be vulnerable to religious attacks by conservative Christians and they started to get worried,' Tebbe said. As the court has shifted its approach, he said, the justices have both granted exemptions from regulations that burden religion as well as said government must treat religious groups no differently than secular organizations when providing public benefits − such as school vouchers. 'While both of those could be seen as understandable on their own terms, when you put them together, there's a clear pattern of preference for religious groups,' he said. 'It's a pretty dramatic moment in constitutional law in this area.' Garnett, the religious freedom expert at the University of Notre Dame Law School, said the court's decisions are a reflection of the ongoing debate over how much accommodation should be given in a country with diverse religious views. 'So the fact that those cases are coming up isn't because the court sort of shifted to protecting majority groups,' he said. 'It's because events on the ground shifted. And the nature of the controversies that are served up are different.'
South China Morning Post
23-06-2025
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
Top US court takes case of Rastafarian whose hair was cut in prison
The US Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear the case of a devout Rastafarian whose knee-length dreadlocks were forcibly cut while he was in prison in the southern state of Louisiana. Advertisement Damon Landor is seeking permission to sue individual officials of the Louisiana Department of Corrections for monetary damages for violating his religious rights. Landor, who had been growing his hair for nearly two decades, was serving the final three weeks of a five-month sentence for drug possession in 2020 when his hair was cut. Landor presented prison guards with a copy of a 2017 court ruling stating that Rastafarians should be allowed to keep their dreadlocks in line with their religious beliefs. A prison guard threw the document away and Landor was handcuffed to a chair and had his head shaved, according to court records. Advertisement An appeal court condemned Landor's 'egregious' treatment but ruled that he is not eligible to sue individual prison officials for damages.
NZ Herald
23-06-2025
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Top US court takes case of Rastafarian whose hair was cut in prison
The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of a devout Rastafarian whose knee-length dreadlocks were forcibly shorn while he was in prison in the southern state of Louisiana. Damon Landor is seeking permission to sue individual officials of the Louisiana Department of Corrections for monetary damages for
France 24
23-06-2025
- Politics
- France 24
Top US court takes case of Rastafarian whose hair was cut in prison
Damon Landor is seeking permission to sue individual officials of the Louisiana Department of Corrections for monetary damages for violating his religious rights. Landor, who had been growing his hair for nearly two decades, was serving the final three weeks of a five-month sentence for drug possession in 2020 when his hair was cut. Landor presented prison guards with a copy of a 2017 court ruling stating that Rastafarians should be allowed to keep their dreadlocks in line with their religious beliefs. A prison guard threw the document away and Landor was handcuffed to a chair and had his head shaved, according to court records. An appeals court condemned Landor's "egregious" treatment but ruled that he is not eligible to sue individual prison officials for damages. Louisiana Attorney General Elizabeth Murrill, in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court, acknowledged that the treatment of Landor by prison guards was "antithetical to religious freedom." "The State has amended its prison grooming policy to ensure that nothing like Petitioner's alleged experience can occur," Murrill said. But federal law does not permit "money damages against a state official sued in his individual capacity," she added. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case during its next term, which begins in October. Rastafarians let their hair grow, typically in dreadlocks, as part of their beliefs in the religion which originated in Jamaica and was popularized by the late reggae singer Bob Marley.
Yahoo
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court takes up religious claim by Rastafarian whose dreadlocks were cut by prison officials
WASHINGTON — Taking up a new religious rights case, the Supreme Court on Monday agreed to weigh a claim for damages brought by a devout Rastafarian whose dreadlocks were cut by Louisiana prison officials against his wishes. At the time of the incident in 2020, Damon Landor had kept a religious vow not to cut his hair for almost 20 years. Landor had served all but three weeks of his five-month sentence imposed for a drug-related criminal conviction in Louisiana when he was transferred to the Raymond Laborde Correction Center. He was holding a copy of a court ruling that made it clear that practicing Rastafarians should be given a religious accommodation allowing them to keep their dreadlocks. But a prison officer dismissed his concerns and Landor was handcuffed to a chair while two officers shaved his head. Upon his release, Landor filed a lawsuit raising various claims, including the one at issue at the Supreme Court, which he brought under a federal law called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. At issue is whether people who sue under that statute can win money damages. Louisiana Attorney General Elizabeth Murrill said in court papers that the state does not contest that Landor was mistreated and noted that the prison system has already changed its grooming policy to ensure that other Rastafarian prisoners do not face similar situations. But she contests whether Landor can get get money damages for his claim. A federal judge and the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the state, saying that money damages are not available. Landor's lawyer point to a 2020 Supreme Court ruling that allowed such damages in claims arising under a similar law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The laws have "identical language," they said in court papers. The court will hear oral arguments and issue a ruling in the case in its next term, which starts in October and ends in June 2026. This article was originally published on
