Latest news with #RLUIPA
Business Upturn
31-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Upturn
Orthodox Synagogue in Orlando, FL Sues for Religious Discrimination
Orlando, FL, July 31, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The Orlando Torah Center (OTC), an Orthodox synagogue in Orlando's Sand Lake Hills neighborhood, filed a federal lawsuit today against Orange County and its Board of County Commissioners after they unfairly denied the synagogue's application to expand. According to OTC's counsel, this case is about ensuring that minority faith institutions are not held to a different standard and that religious freedom is fully protected under the law. The Orlando Torah Center's lawsuit seeks to defend its rights under the First Amendment, the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), and Florida's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 'Religious freedom is not optional; it is a constitutional guarantee,' said counsel Roman Storzer of Storzer and Associates, a leader in First Amendment and RLUIPA law. 'OTC has every legal and moral right to exist, expand, and serve its community without undue burden or discrimination.' The Orlando Torah Center, located along South Apopka Vineland Road in an area locally known as 'Church Row' for its concentration of more than a dozen churches, has served a walkable congregation since 2015. While numerous churches, a public school, and a daycare center have all received similar zoning approvals in similar zoning districts, OTC's request to expand for its religious use faced intense public opposition, including antisemitic remarks during public hearings, and was ultimately denied by the Board of County Commissioners on July 1, 2025, according to the legal complaint. 'Individuals of all faiths have a right to worship without outside interference,' said Mr. Storzer. 'OTC members have been part of their neighborhood for more than a decade. They have operated peacefully and built lasting relationships with families of all faiths. Disappointedly, they were denied the same rights routinely granted to others.' OTC seeks to expand its facility to accommodate increased attendance, children's programs, and enhanced safety measures—especially important given the rise in antisemitic attacks targeting Jewish institutions across the country. According to the lawsuit, OTC members face severe hardship due to lack of space, including families having to participate in religious activities outdoors in the Florida heat, children being unable to attend holiday programs, and attendees being exposed to safety risks due to the inability to secure the building. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Case No. 6:25-cv-014. To read the full complaint, please click here. For media inquiries, please contact [email protected]. About Orlando Torah Center Founded in 2011, the Orlando Torah Center (OTC) is an Orthodox synagogue committed to fostering a vibrant, welcoming community rooted in Torah learning, prayer, and acts of kindness. Serving a diverse and growing congregation, OTC offers educational programs, youth activities, and spiritual guidance for individuals and families at every stage of observance. As part of Orlando's thriving Torah infrastructure, OTC plays a central role in supporting Jewish life and continuity in the region. Disclaimer: The above press release comes to you under an arrangement with GlobeNewswire. Business Upturn takes no editorial responsibility for the same. Ahmedabad Plane Crash
Miami Herald
30-07-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
City rejects permit to build mosque over ‘anti-Muslim animus,' TN lawsuit says
A local Muslim congregation is suing a Tennessee city after officials delayed plans to build a mosque then rejected them completely. The lawsuit — filed July 25 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the Bartlett Muslim Society — asks the court to declare the city's actions a violation of federal and state law and to make the city approve their building plans. 'Our congregation needs more space to worship, teach our children, and host community meals and gatherings,' Badrul Hossain, board president of the Bartlett Muslim Society, said in a July 25 news release. 'We have tried very hard to work with the city and have responded to any and all concerns raised, yet we were still denied a permit.' A spokesperson for the City of Bartlett told McClatchy News in a July 30 email they had not been officially served with the complaint and are unable to comment. According to the complaint, city officials have approved plans for Christian churches in similar or 'less favorable' situations, including one church in which 70 people signed a petition in opposition of the build. 'This is a clear case of interference with religious freedom,' Stella Yarbrough, ACLU-TN legal director said in the release. 'The facts don't support the permit denial, but they do reveal something deeper — an attempt to restrict a community's religious practices based on who they are.' Bartlett is about a 10-mile drive northeast from downtown Memphis. The Bartlett Muslim Society — made up of about 20 families — had plans to build a new worship space after outgrowing a commercial retail space it had been renting, according to the complaint. The rental space lacked room to accommodate religious needs, like keeping men and women separate during prayer, performing ablution and observing the Ramadan feast together, according to the complaint. But after purchasing land for a new mosque and submitting a special use permit application in 2023, the congregation was subjected to 'extensive, expensive, and purposeless delay as part of a sham permitting process,' attorneys said. This marked the start of what led to the suit accusing the city of violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) of 2000, which protects religious institutions from discrimination in zoning and landmarking laws, according to the Department of Justice. Unlike other applicants for the permit, the Bartlett Muslim Society had to complete a mandatory traffic study, which they paid more than $20,000 for, according to the complaint. Two city planning commission members said in private text messages they thought the traffic study was 'a total waste of time and money,' according to a public records request cited in the complaint. Despite the study's conclusion that the mosque wouldn't have a negative impact on traffic patterns, the commission voted unanimously in December to deny the request, and in February it was formally denied by the city, attorneys said. According to attorneys, the city also denied any attempts to compromise or find an alternate solution, imposing a burden on the group's religious exercise and discriminating against them based on religion. 'The real reason the (Bartlett Muslim Society's) permit was denied was anti-Muslim animus,' attorneys said. In previous years, Muslims have been perceived as facing a 'high degree of discrimination,' according to Pew Research Center. While that changed this year — with the share of Americans who said Muslims face discrimination at the lowest level in eight years — Muslims still remain among the top groups to be perceived as facing at least some discrimination, McClatchy News reported.
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
UPI
23-06-2025
- Politics
- UPI
U.S. Supreme Court to rule over Rastafarian inmate hair religious exempts
1 of 2 | On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court took on a new religious case regarding a former Louisiana inmate of Rastafarian belief whose dreadlocks were forcibly cut off by prison officials. The court will hear oral arguments in the case and issue a ruling during its next term starting October and ending next year in June. File Photo by Jemal Countess/UPI | License Photo June 23 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday took on a new religious case regarding a former Louisiana inmate of Rastafarian belief whose dreadlocks were forcibly cut off by prison officials, but only after after a lower court "emphatically" condemned the ex-inmate's treatment as he seeks financial relief. Damon Landor served all but three weeks of a five-month jail sentence in 2020 on a drug-related criminal conviction when he was transferred to Raymond Laborde Correction Center in Avoyelles Parish roughly 30 miles south of Alexandria in east-central Louisiana. He took with him a copy of a 2017 decision by the state's 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saying Louisiana's policy of cutting the hair of Rastafarians violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and Landor then showed the intake guard. The federal act forbids regulations that impose a "substantial burden" on the religious exercise of jailed persons, but a prison official rebuffed his concern. He was eventually handcuffed to a chair held down by two guards while a third shaved him bald on the warden's instructions order, according to Landor's legal appeal. Landor's lawsuit pointed to a number of claims such as the issue at play under the federal RLUIPA. The appeal noted the Supreme Court's 2020 ruling that government officials can be sued in their individual capacity for damages for violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and that relevant language in the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act was identical. In court papers, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said the state did not disagree that Landor was mistreated and noted how the prison system had reportedly switched its policy to accommodate Rastafarian prisoners, but Murrill added that Landor's lawsuit didn't qualify for compensation as relief. However, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said that to deny Landor the option to seek damages as a remedy in a purported violation of RLUIPA would "undermine that important purpose." "And the circumstances precluding relief here are not unique," Sauer wrote in a court filing. Landor's legal team noted in a legal petition how more than one million people are incarcerated in state prisons and local jails. "Under the prevailing rule in the circuit courts, those individuals are deprived of a key remedy crucial to obtaining meaningful relief," the law firm of Weil, Gotshal & Manges and Casey Denson wrote in its agreement with Sauer, adding that the broad implications warrant court review. Meanwhile, the nation's high court is expected to hear oral arguments in the case and issue a ruling during its next term starting October and ending June 2026.
CBS News
23-06-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Supreme Court takes up case of Rastafarian man seeking to sue prison officials for cutting his dreadlocks
Washington — The Supreme Court said Monday that it will consider a religious rights case brought by a former Louisiana inmate who is seeking to sue Louisiana prison officials for money damages for shaving his dreadlocks in violation of his religious beliefs. The high court will review a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that said the former inmate, Damon Landor, could not seek monetary damages against the officials in their individual capacities under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA. Landor is a devout Rastafarian who pledged to "let the locks of the hair of his head grow," known as the Nazarite Vow. Landor upheld that pledge for nearly 20 years, until he was nearly finished with a five-month prison sentence in Louisiana. For the first four months of his incarceration, the two facilities where Landor was housed allowed him to keep his hair long or under a "rastacap." But that changed after Landor was transferred to the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center for the final three weeks of his sentence. Once there, Landor told an intake guard that he was a practicing Rastafarian and handed over proof of his religious accommodations, as well as a copy of a 2017 decision from the 5th Circuit that found Louisiana's policy of cutting Rastafarians' hair violated RLUIPA, according to court filings. But two guards ultimately handcuffed Landor to a chair, held him down and had his head shaved, according to papers filed with the Supreme Court. Landor filed a lawsuit against the prison officials after he was released and brought numerous claims, including under the RLUIPA. But a federal judge agreed to dismiss the case, finding that the law does not allow for damages against individual state officials. A three-judge panel of judges on the 5th Circuit affirmed that decision, ruling that while it "emphatically" condemned Landor's treatment, a prior decision in the circuit required it to hold that he could not seek money damages from officials in their individual capacities for violations of RLUIPA. The full 5th Circuit refused to reconsider the case, with 11 judges voting not to rehear it and six voting in favor. The case follows a Supreme Court decision from December 2020 in which it unanimously held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, RLUIPA's sister statute, allows litigants to obtain money damages against federal officials in their individual capacities. Lawyers for Landor argued that Congress enacted the two laws to provide meaningful protection for religious liberty, and denying litigants the opportunity to seek damages for violations of RLUIPA would render that promise empty. Louisiana officials said in court papers that the allegations raised in Landor's appeal are "antithetical to religious freedom and fair treatment of state prisoners," and condemned them "in the strongest possible terms." But they urged the Supreme Court to turn away his appeal and said the state amended its prison grooming policy to prevent other inmates from being treated as Landor was. The justices will hear arguments in its next term, which begins in October, with a decision expected by the summer of 2026.
