Supreme Court blocks personal-damages claims in Rastafarian prison hair case

The Supreme Court on June 23, 2026, said a federal prison-religious-rights law does not let inmates collect money damages from individual prison officers unless those officers knowingly and voluntarily accepted that liability.

The case, Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, involved Damon Landor, a Rastafarian former Louisiana inmate who said officers forcibly shaved his dreadlocks even after he showed proof of his faith. The Court did not approve that conduct. It held only that this statute, RLUIPA, does not support personal-capacity damages claims against nonconsenting state employees.

What the Court decided

Justice Gorsuch wrote for the 6-3 majority, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justices Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissented. The majority treated RLUIPA as a Spending Clause law and said liability under that kind of statute requires clear, knowing consent.

Because the officers in Landor’s case never agreed to that exposure, the damages claim against them could not go forward.

Why it matters nationally

The ruling matters for prison litigation nationwide because it closes one damages route in religious-liberty cases. It does not resolve every possible RLUIPA remedy, but it will make future lawsuits harder when plaintiffs seek money from individual officers rather than the prison system itself.

For inmates, lawyers, and correctional systems, the practical takeaway is simple: religious-accommodation disputes can still arise, but one path to personal liability is now narrower.

Sources

• U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety (June 23, 2026)
• Associated Press: Supreme Court rules against Rastafari man in prison dreadlocks case
• CBS News: Supreme Court rules Rastafarian ex-inmate can't sue prison officials for shaving dreadlocks