Latest news with #Landor
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.'
Fast Company
30-07-2025
- Business
- Fast Company
Why now is the time to invest in sustainability—if you make it brand-led
FAST COMPANY EXECUTIVE BOARD According to Luc Speisser, global chief strategy and innovation officer at Landor, this moment isn't the time to retreat. It's time to rethink the approach. [Courtesy of Luc Speisser] The Fast Company Executive Board is a private, fee-based network of influential leaders, experts, executives, and entrepreneurs who share their insights with our audience. BY Sustainability's momentum has slowed. Companies are delaying net-zero pledges. Budgets are being slashed. And in the face of economic pressure, many organizations are quietly stepping back from ESG commitments. But according to Luc Speisser, global chief strategy and innovation officer at Landor, this moment isn't the time to retreat. It's time to rethink the approach. 'Sustainability can't just be about compliance,' Speisser says. 'If it's compliance, it's a cost. And when times get tough, costs get cut.' THE PROBLEM WITH COMPLIANCE Speisser points to a hard truth: Compliance-driven sustainability doesn't differentiate. 'At best, it creates relevance. And relevance just gets you in the door,' he explains. 'It doesn't help you stand out. If everyone's doing the same thing (setting net-zero targets, reducing plastic), you end up with a green sea of sameness. Nobody remembers who said what.' This sameness, he argues, is why many sustainability initiatives fail to generate a return on investment. 'If you're spending millions and no one can tell the difference between your efforts and your competitor's, you're not building preference. And if you're not building preference, you're not building value.' CONSUMERS STILL EXPECT MORE Despite the slowdown in investment, public expectations remain high. Citing Kantar data, Speisser notes that 86% of global consumers say urgent action is needed to address climate change, and 64% believe it's businesses, not governments, that should lead the way. Meanwhile, 94% of marketers believe it's part of their role to push sustainability forward. Yet, there's a massive say-do gap. 'People say they care, but most won't pay more for sustainable alternatives,' he says. 'That's the disconnect brands have to solve. Not by scaling back but by making sustainability brand-led, so it drives business value, not just moral value.' A BRAND-LED APPROACH TO SUSTAINABILITY At Landor, the answer starts with the brand. 'We always begin with the brand promise,' Speisser says. 'A brand is a promise, and a great brand is a promise kept.' That promise becomes the foundation for brand-led sustainability. The process, as he outlines, is simple but powerful: Identify what the brand stands for, map it against the UN's 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and choose the right problem to solve, one that aligns with the brand's culture, capabilities, and point of view. Critically, brands shouldn't try to solve everything. 'Don't be a champion of everything,' Speisser advises. 'Be a champion of something. That's how you differentiate.' He points to Saudia Airlines as an example. Their brand promise, Welcome to Our Future, blends traditional Arabic hospitality with modern ambition. Rather than apply this broadly, Saudia chose to focus on one overlooked but deeply relevant area: caring for the millions of Hajj pilgrims who travel annually in extreme heat. As such, Saudia Airlines takes a stand on SDG 3: Good health and wellbeing. 'This led to the creation of the Coolest Ihram,' says Speisser. 'It's a high-tech garment using BRRR cooling technology to create a personal microclimate, lowering the skin temperature by up to two degrees. And those two degrees can be the difference between heat stroke and safe travel.' The initiative is a clear realization of Saudia's brand. 'It's not just sustainable,' he adds. 'It's specific. It's culturally relevant. It's emotionally resonant. And it's fully ownable.' One of the biggest challenges brands face is proving the business case for sustainability. As Speisser puts it, 'Sustainability as the only ingredient won't work. You have to add value to the user, to the business, to the brand.' Take Ariel's Ecoclic pod container. While switching from plastic to cardboard was a relevant move, the real breakthrough came in adding accessibility. 'The new pack design is easy to open for the 750 million people globally who live with dexterity challenges, while maintaining high safety standards for children,' Speisser explains. 'That's not just compliance—it's innovation. It creates new market access. It creates preference.' Or consider Accessories, a 3D-printed, 'one size fits one' toothbrush handle co-designed with people living with arthritis. 'We asked participants what they'd pay for a solution that removes their pain. Some said they would be ready to pay even £300, as this is a life-changing solution for them and has immense value. We brought it to market for £50,' says Speisser. 'That's innovation rooted in empathy and brand equity.' These aren't compliance moves. They're what Landor calls ownable firsts: ideas that are brand-led, business-generating, and category-defining. A PLAYBOOK FOR BRAND LEADERS For leaders under pressure to cut sustainability spending, Speisser offers pragmatic guidance: Plan for uncertainty. Don't rely on regulators. Don't assume the cultural climate will shift in your favor. Build a strategy that works no matter what. Expect no premium. Consumers won't pay more for sustainability. So give them something better, more functional, more beautiful, more meaningful. Make the business case. Sustainability must serve people, planet, and profit. Only when it hits all three does it become a smart investment. Think in road maps. Quick wins are important. But brand-led sustainability isn't a one-off campaign. It's a pipeline of meaningful innovation. Landor uses a framework to help companies balance 'points of parity' (like switching to recyclable materials) with 'points of difference' (like creating inclusive design or redefining category norms). The goal: Make sustainability work for the brand, beyond the common good. WHY NOW? At a time when many companies are pulling back, Speisser argues the opposite: Now is exactly the right moment to lean in. 'Tough times cut the fluff,' he says. 'Sustainability that doesn't serve the business won't survive. But brand-led sustainability? That's different. It makes the brand stronger. It opens new markets. It builds lasting preference.' He says plainly, 'If you just want to do good and hug trees, that's fine. But it won't be sustainable. Someone in the company will eventually ask, 'What is this driving?' And if the answer is nothing, the funding disappears.' In contrast, the brands that win will be those that connect sustainability with purpose, performance, and profit. 'You have to make sustainability work for your business,' Speisser concludes. 'Because if you don't, it won't work at all.' He adds: 'And let's not forget that bringing together people, planet and profit is nothing more than the United Nations' definition of Sustainability.' The early-rate deadline for Fast Company's Most Innovative Companies Awards is Friday, September 5, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply today. ABOUT THE AUTHOR The Fast Company Executive Board is a private, fee-based network of influential leaders, experts, executives, and entrepreneurs who share their insights with our audience. More
BBC News
30-07-2025
- General
- BBC News
Finchampstead California Cross junction shortlisted for awards
A controversial refurbishment of a road junction has been shortlisted for several California Cross junction in Finchampstead, Berkshire, was repainted with a distinctive leaf design that divided locals in the redesign has been shortlisted for two categories in the Highways Awards, and in the Placemaking Project category of the British Construction & Infrastructure (BCI) Borough Council's executive member for transport, Adrian Betteridge, said it was "great" to see the project recognised, but reactions from residents has been mixed. The categories the junction has been shortlisted in are Active Travel Scheme of the Year, and Line Marking and Street has also been named Best Community Project in the Landor LINKS Active Travel Directory and Yearbook 2025-26, the council said. Resident Jim Holmes said he was not surprised the junction had been shortlisted, and described the junction as "interesting".But he said he had concerns over the pedestrian crossing."I don't have a problem with the rest of it - it's give way to the right as per usual," he said."My real concern is for the pedestrians... is it a pedestrian crossing or isn't it? I think that's where the real danger is." Another resident, Jackie Robinault, said she was "amazed" it had been shortlisted, and described the redesign as "a disaster"."I think it was a waste of money - I think it was better as it was," she said."People seem to have forgotten that it's a roundabout, don't know what to do when they get here." Another local, Alex Sykes, also said the confusion over priority was a problem, and said he and his friends referred to it as "the playground"."We're calling it a roundabout still, but is it a roundabout? Where are the right of ways? Where do you turn?" he said. "Some people dither and very sensibly go 'what do we do', and some people bomb it and go straight over... I wouldn't give it any awards for innovation, to be honest."Wokingham Borough Council said a study found pedestrians crossed the road in less time and drivers gave way more often.A monitoring road safety audit will take place in October. You can follow BBC Berkshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
Black America Web
29-06-2025
- Politics
- Black America Web
Supreme Court To Hear Rastafarian Lawsuit Over Shaved Locs
Source: JOSPIN MWISHA / Getty The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear the case of Damon Landor, a devout Rastafarian whose dreadlocks were forcibly shaved by prison guards in Louisiana, despite a clear legal precedent protecting his religious right to wear them. According to the lawsuit, Landor, who had vowed not to cut his hair for nearly two decades as part of his faith, entered the Louisiana prison system in 2020 to serve a five-month sentence for a drug-related offense. At the time when he began his sentence, his locs fell nearly to his knees. After serving all but three weeks of his five-month sentence, Landor was transferred to the Raymond Laborde Correction Center. He claims the violation occurred at that facility. Landor states that he entered with 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 reportedly shaved his head after throwing the documents in the trash. 'When I was strapped down and shaved, it felt like I was raped,' Landor said in a statement. 'And the guards, they just didn't care. They will treat you any kind of way. They knew better than to cut my hair, but they did it anyway.' 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, seeking damages for the trauma and violation he endured. Source: JOSPIN MWISHA / Getty 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. At the heart of the case is whether individuals suing under RLUIPA can recover monetary damages. Currently, there's a similar law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, that allows for monetary compensation for damages, and Landor's attorneys point out that both statutes contain 'identical language.' In a 2020 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed that money damages were permissible under the RFRA. Landor's lawyers argue that precedent should apply here as well. Nevertheless, both a federal judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of the state, barring Landor from collecting damages. Now, the highest court in the country will weigh in. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in its next term, which begins in October and concludes in June 2026. For Landor and many other incarcerated individuals who practice minority religions, the outcome could determine whether justice is just in name or inclusive of reparations. SEE ALSO: Jamaica Supreme Court Rules School Can Ban Dreadlocks Black Men Sue To Keep Beards And Locks SEE ALSO Supreme Court To Hear Rastafarian Lawsuit Over Shaved Locs was originally published on
Boston Globe
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court to hear Rastafarian prisoner's suit over shaved dreadlocks
Advertisement The first four months of Landor's incarceration were uneventful. Then he was transferred to the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center in Cottonport, La. According to his lawsuit, he presented a copy of the 2017 decision to a guard, who threw it in the trash. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up After consulting the warden, two guards handcuffed Landor to a chair, held him down, and shaved his head to the scalp. 'When I was strapped down and shaved, it felt like I was raped,' Landor said in a statement last year. 'And the guards, they just didn't care. They will treat you any kind of way. They knew better than to cut my hair, but they did it anyway.' The question the justices agreed to decide is whether the 2000 religious freedom law allows suits against prison officials for money. Advertisement The case is in an early stage, and courts have assumed that Landor's account of what happened to him is true. Officials in Louisiana have so far not disputed it. Elizabeth B. Murrill, Louisiana's attorney general, agreed the conduct Landor described was appalling, but she said the 2000 law did not allow his suit. 'The allegations in petitioner's complaint are antithetical to religious freedom and fair treatment of state prisoners,' Murrill wrote in a brief urging the justices to deny review. 'Without equivocation, the state condemns them in the strongest possible terms.' She added that 'the state has amended its prison grooming policy to ensure that nothing like petitioner's alleged experience can occur.' Last month, the Trump administration filed a supporting brief urging the justices to hear Landor's case and to rule that he may pursue his suit. Landor's case does not seem to be an outlier. At least five other Rastafarians have filed lawsuits in Louisiana saying their dreadlocks were forcibly shaved by prison officials. Landor sued the warden and the guards under the 2000 law, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. When the case reached the 5th Circuit, the same court that had ruled that the law protected Rastafarian prisoners' dreadlocks, a different three-judge panel said that 'we emphatically condemn the treatment that Landor endured." But that condemnation was all the relief the panel was willing to offer Landor. It ruled that he was still not entitled to sue the prison officials for money because the 2000 law had not specifically authorized such suits. In his petition asking the Supreme Court to hear his case, Landor said the 5th Circuit's ruling was at odds with a 2020 decision interpreting identical language in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Advertisement In that case, the court ruled in favor of Muslim men who said their religious rights had been violated when FBI agents put them on the no-fly list in retaliation for refusing to become government informants. The court did not find the question of whether they could sue for money difficult. In a brisk nine-page opinion for a unanimous court in 2020 in the case, Tanzin v. Tanvir, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that 'in the context of suits against government officials, damages have long been awarded as appropriate relief.' In Landor's case, the 5th Circuit ruled that the 2000 law, which applies to the states, was meaningfully different from the 1993 law, which, after the Supreme Court limited its sweep, applies only to the federal government. The full 5th Circuit declined to rehear the panel's ruling. But nine judges in the majority urged the Supreme Court to clarify matters in the case, Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, No. 23-1197. Prison officials, Judge Edith Brown Clement wrote, 'knowingly violated Damon Landor's rights in a stark and egregious manner, literally throwing in the trash our opinion holding that Louisiana's policy of cutting Rastafarians' hair violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act before pinning Landor down and shaving his head. Landor clearly suffered a grave legal wrong.' But whether he can sue prison officials for money, Clement wrote, 'is a question only the Supreme Court can answer.' Zack Tripp, a lawyer with Weil, Gotshal & Manges, which represents Landor, said he hoped the answer was yes. Advertisement 'Nobody should have to experience what Mr. Landor endured,' he said in a statement. 'A decision in Mr. Landor's favor will go a long way towards holding officers accountable for egregious violations of religious liberty, and ensuring that what happened to Mr. Landor does not happen to anyone else.' This article originally appeared in .
