Latest news with #ReligiousLandUseandInstitutionalizedPersonsAct
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.'
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
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 .
