Latest news with #religiousrights
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- 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
CNN
10 hours ago
- Politics
- CNN
Supreme Court agrees to hear case of Rastafarian man seeking to sue prison officials for cutting his dreadlocks
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to take up the case of a Rastafarian man seeking to sue prison officials in Louisiana who cut off his dreadlocks while he was incarcerated. The case is the latest that involves religious rights to catch the high court's attention, and it could have significant implications by allowing prisoners to sue government officials for damages when their religious rights are burdened under a federal law enacted 25 years ago. Damon Landor, a devout Rastafarian who began serving a five-month prison sentence in 2020 for drug possession, had taken a religious vow years earlier to not cut his locks. But his situation took a turn for the worst after arriving at a new prison weeks before his release. He handed officials a copy of an appeals court ruling from 2017 that allowed prisoners to have dreadlocks. The guards tossed it in the trash. They then handcuffed him to a chair and forcibly shaved his head. Following Landor's release, he sued Louisiana prison officials and guards for damages under a decades-old law that protects the religious interests of inmates. But lower courts dismissed his case, ruling that the law doesn't allow individuals to pursue damages against prison officials for alleged violations of it even though, in one court's view, he had the victim of a 'grave legal wrong.' The conservative New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals said in a unanimous decision last year that it 'emphatically' condemned 'the treatment that Landor endured,' but an earlier appeals court precedent settled the case against him. The full 5th Circuit divided on whether to hear the case. President Bill Clinton signed the bipartisan law in 2000 that protects the religion interests of state prisoners but it's not clear whether that law allows people who were harmed to sue for money damages. The Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that a similar law with nearly identical language allows people whose religious rights have been burdened to seek damages against government officials acting in their individual capacity. 'Without a damages remedy,' lawyers for Landor told the justices in court papers, inmates 'will often be left without meaningful protection for their religious exercise.' In other words, once Landor's head was shaved, the only way for him to have some legal remedy is through money damages. 'The no-damages rule ensured that respondent officials would not be held accountable for violating the religious rights of a prisoner set for release in just three weeks and prevented him from obtaining any relief for the abuse he suffered,' his lawyers said. Attorneys for the Louisiana state officials urged the court to not take up the case, arguing among other things that Landor could bring his claims under state law. They also told the justices that permitting the lawsuit to move forward could hamper the state's ability to hire staff in its prisons. Siding with Landor, they told the court, 'would almost certainly deepen the problem by driving down staffing levels and dissuading job applicants.' 'That, in turn, inevitably would lead to worse prison conditions and perhaps lessened protections for religious liberty, as understaffed prisons attempt to survive the growing prison populations,' they added. 'No one wins in that situation.' The Trump administration, meanwhile, had asked the justices to take up the matter. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court in May that the federal government has an interest 'in ensuring that prisons or other institutions receiving federal funds do not substantially burden religious exercise, and damages liability is closely connected to that interest.'
CNN
10 hours ago
- Politics
- CNN
Supreme Court agrees to hear case of Rastafarian man seeking to sue prison officials for cutting his dreadlocks
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to take up the case of a Rastafarian man seeking to sue prison officials in Louisiana who cut off his dreadlocks while he was incarcerated. The case is the latest that involves religious rights to catch the high court's attention, and it could have significant implications by allowing prisoners to sue government officials for damages when their religious rights are burdened under a federal law enacted 25 years ago. Damon Landor, a devout Rastafarian who began serving a five-month prison sentence in 2020 for drug possession, had taken a religious vow years earlier to not cut his locks. But his situation took a turn for the worst after arriving at a new prison weeks before his release. He handed officials a copy of an appeals court ruling from 2017 that allowed prisoners to have dreadlocks. The guards tossed it in the trash. They then handcuffed him to a chair and forcibly shaved his head. Following Landor's release, he sued Louisiana prison officials and guards for damages under a decades-old law that protects the religious interests of inmates. But lower courts dismissed his case, ruling that the law doesn't allow individuals to pursue damages against prison officials for alleged violations of it even though, in one court's view, he had the victim of a 'grave legal wrong.' The conservative New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals said in a unanimous decision last year that it 'emphatically' condemned 'the treatment that Landor endured,' but an earlier appeals court precedent settled the case against him. The full 5th Circuit divided on whether to hear the case. President Bill Clinton signed the bipartisan law in 2000 that protects the religion interests of state prisoners but it's not clear whether that law allows people who were harmed to sue for money damages. The Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that a similar law with nearly identical language allows people whose religious rights have been burdened to seek damages against government officials acting in their individual capacity. 'Without a damages remedy,' lawyers for Landor told the justices in court papers, inmates 'will often be left without meaningful protection for their religious exercise.' In other words, once Landor's head was shaved, the only way for him to have some legal remedy is through money damages. 'The no-damages rule ensured that respondent officials would not be held accountable for violating the religious rights of a prisoner set for release in just three weeks and prevented him from obtaining any relief for the abuse he suffered,' his lawyers said. Attorneys for the Louisiana state officials urged the court to not take up the case, arguing among other things that Landor could bring his claims under state law. They also told the justices that permitting the lawsuit to move forward could hamper the state's ability to hire staff in its prisons. Siding with Landor, they told the court, 'would almost certainly deepen the problem by driving down staffing levels and dissuading job applicants.' 'That, in turn, inevitably would lead to worse prison conditions and perhaps lessened protections for religious liberty, as understaffed prisons attempt to survive the growing prison populations,' they added. 'No one wins in that situation.' The Trump administration, meanwhile, had asked the justices to take up the matter. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court in May that the federal government has an interest 'in ensuring that prisons or other institutions receiving federal funds do not substantially burden religious exercise, and damages liability is closely connected to that interest.'
CNN
10 hours ago
- Politics
- CNN
Supreme Court agrees to hear case of Rastafarian man seeking to sue prison officials for cutting his dreadlocks
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to take up the case of a Rastafarian man seeking to sue prison officials in Louisiana who cut off his dreadlocks while he was incarcerated. The case is the latest that involves religious rights to catch the high court's attention, and it could have significant implications by allowing prisoners to sue government officials for damages when their religious rights are burdened under a federal law enacted 25 years ago. Damon Landor, a devout Rastafarian who began serving a five-month prison sentence in 2020 for drug possession, had taken a religious vow years earlier to not cut his locks. But his situation took a turn for the worst after arriving at a new prison weeks before his release. He handed officials a copy of an appeals court ruling from 2017 that allowed prisoners to have dreadlocks. The guards tossed it in the trash. They then handcuffed him to a chair and forcibly shaved his head. Following Landor's release, he sued Louisiana prison officials and guards for damages under a decades-old law that protects the religious interests of inmates. But lower courts dismissed his case, ruling that the law doesn't allow individuals to pursue damages against prison officials for alleged violations of it even though, in one court's view, he had the victim of a 'grave legal wrong.' The conservative New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals said in a unanimous decision last year that it 'emphatically' condemned 'the treatment that Landor endured,' but an earlier appeals court precedent settled the case against him. The full 5th Circuit divided on whether to hear the case. President Bill Clinton signed the bipartisan law in 2000 that protects the religion interests of state prisoners but it's not clear whether that law allows people who were harmed to sue for money damages. The Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that a similar law with nearly identical language allows people whose religious rights have been burdened to seek damages against government officials acting in their individual capacity. 'Without a damages remedy,' lawyers for Landor told the justices in court papers, inmates 'will often be left without meaningful protection for their religious exercise.' In other words, once Landor's head was shaved, the only way for him to have some legal remedy is through money damages. 'The no-damages rule ensured that respondent officials would not be held accountable for violating the religious rights of a prisoner set for release in just three weeks and prevented him from obtaining any relief for the abuse he suffered,' his lawyers said. Attorneys for the Louisiana state officials urged the court to not take up the case, arguing among other things that Landor could bring his claims under state law. They also told the justices that permitting the lawsuit to move forward could hamper the state's ability to hire staff in its prisons. Siding with Landor, they told the court, 'would almost certainly deepen the problem by driving down staffing levels and dissuading job applicants.' 'That, in turn, inevitably would lead to worse prison conditions and perhaps lessened protections for religious liberty, as understaffed prisons attempt to survive the growing prison populations,' they added. 'No one wins in that situation.' The Trump administration, meanwhile, had asked the justices to take up the matter. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court in May that the federal government has an interest 'in ensuring that prisons or other institutions receiving federal funds do not substantially burden religious exercise, and damages liability is closely connected to that interest.'
Reuters
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
US Supreme Court may broaden religious rights in looming rulings
WASHINGTON, May 19 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court in a trio of rulings expected in the coming weeks appears inclined to extend its trend of taking an expansive view of religious rights while potentially dealing a sharp blow to the principle of separation of church and state. During arguments in the cases, a majority of the justices appeared sympathetic toward a bid to create the nation's first taxpayer-funded religious charter school in Oklahoma, a push for religious exemptions from a Wisconsin unemployment insurance tax and a request by religious parents of students in a Maryland county for an opt-out from classroom storybooks with LGBT characters. President Donald Trump's administration sided with the religious claimants in all three cases. The rulings, expected by the end of June, promise to offer fresh insight about how the court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, views the two religion clauses of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. Its "establishment clause" prohibits the government from establishing or endorsing any particular religion or promoting religion over nonreligion. Its "free exercise" clause protects the right to practice one's religion freely, without government interference. University of Illinois Chicago law professor Steve Schwinn said he expects the rulings will continue the court's years-long trend of sharply limiting the application of the establishment clause and dramatically expanding the application of the free exercise clause. The net result of such prior decisions, Schwinn said, is that "the religion clauses today invite and in some cases even require religion to play an increasing role in public institutions, public programs and public life." "Given that this term tees up three significant cases on the religion clauses, all in a similar spirit, the impact of the trio could be quite substantial," Schwinn added. Notre Dame Law School professor Richard Garnett, who has supported the religious claimants in the three cases, described the court's trend over the past few decades as having "rejected an interpretation of the Constitution that would exclude religion from public life or prevent reasonable cooperation and accommodation." The highest-profile case of the three involves a bid led by two Catholic dioceses to establish in Oklahoma the first taxpayer-funded religious charter school in the United States. The proposed St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School and the state charter school board appealed a ruling by Oklahoma's Supreme Court that blocked the plan. Charter schools, considered public schools under Oklahoma law, draw funding from the state government. Established as alternatives to traditional public schools, charter schools typically operate under private management and often feature small class sizes, innovative teaching styles or a particular academic focus. Oklahoma's top court ruled that the proposed school ran afoul of the establishment clause and would be acting as "a surrogate of the state." St. Isidore's organizers argued that Oklahoma's refusal to establish it as a charter school solely because it is religious is discrimination under the free exercise clause, and said the Oklahoma court erred by deeming it an arm of the government rather than a private entity. Oklahoma's Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond sued to challenge St. Isidore's establishment. During April 30 arguments in the case, the conservative justices signaled sympathy toward St. Isidore while some of the court's liberal justices posed sharp questions about why the proposed school would not violate constitutional limits on governmental involvement in religion. "I'm just trying to understand your establishment clause 'nothing to see here' position," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson told U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, arguing for the Trump administration. "Are you saying that the religious charter school's use of public funds to support proselytization, which the school says it intends to do, is not an establishment clause problem?" Jackson asked. Sauer said the establishment clause is not violated when parents get to decide whether to send their children to religious or non-religious schools. "Here, the parents are choosing with open eyes to take their kid to the religious charter school," Sauer said. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, said that recent decisions involving public aid to religious schools reflect a major shift in how the court has approached the First Amendment religion clauses. In 2022, the court ruled in favor of two Christian families in their challenge to Maine's tuition-assistance program that had excluded private religious schools. In 2020, it endorsed Montana tax credits that helped pay for students to attend private religious schools, ruling in favor of three mothers of Christian school students. Those decisions followed the court's 2017 ruling in favor of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Missouri, that declared that churches and other religious entities cannot be flatly denied public money based on their religious status - even in states whose constitutions explicitly ban such funding. "For decades the establishment clause was seen as a limit on aid to religious schools," Chemerinsky said. "Now, the free exercise clause is creating a right of religious schools to receive aid." "The Oklahoma charter school case is exactly about this: not whether it violates the establishment clause for the government to support religious charter schools, but whether the free exercise clause requires that the government do so," said Chemerinsky, who joined a court brief opposing the religious charter school's legal position. Thomas Berg, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota, said the Oklahoma case could have a major impact on the establishment clause if the court rules that "a substantial number of charters (charter schools) are private actors, not state actors, and thus are not subject to the establishment clause." The First Amendment generally constrains the government but not private entities. Opponents have said religious charter schools would force taxpayers to support religious indoctrination and undermine workplace nondiscrimination principles because these schools might seek to bar employees who do not adhere to doctrinal teachings. The court is also weighing a bid by Christian and Muslim parents to keep their children out of certain public elementary school classes in Maryland's Montgomery County when storybooks with LGBT characters are read. The justices during April 22 arguments appeared inclined to rule in favor of the plaintiffs after lower courts declined to order the school district to let children opt out when these books are read. The parents contend that the school board's policy of prohibiting opt-outs violates the free exercise clause. The case did not directly implicate the establishment clause. The court's liberal justices raised concerns about how far opt-outs for students could go beyond storybooks in public schools, offering examples of subjects that might come up in classes such as evolution, interracial marriage or women working outside the home. The Wisconsin case involves a bid by an arm of the Catholic diocese in the city of Superior for a religious exemption from the state's unemployment insurance tax. The court appeared sympathetic during March 31 arguments to an appeal by the Catholic Charities Bureau - a nonprofit corporation operating as the diocese's social ministry arm - and four entities that the bureau oversees of a lower court's decision rejecting their tax exemption bid. The federal government and all states exempt certain religious entities from paying into unemployment insurance programs that benefit eligible jobless workers, as other employers generally are required to do. Most of these laws, including Wisconsin's, require that organizations be "operated primarily for religious purposes" for religious exemption eligibility. In rejecting the tax exemption, Wisconsin's top court found that although the groups "assert a religious motivation behind their work," their activities were "primarily charitable and secular," not "operated primarily for religious purposes." At issue was whether Wisconsin's denial of the tax exemption violated both religion clauses. Berg, who joined legal briefs favoring the Maryland parents and Wisconsin Catholic Charities Bureau, said the impact of the court's rulings in these cases depends on their scope. "Carefully, narrowly reasoned wins would continue the court's recent emphasis that religious exercise, although not the only right, is a constitutionally important one," Berg said. "But less careful, broadly reasoned religious wins could upset the balance."
