WASHINGTON — Prison inmates whose religious rights are clearly violated by guards and wardens may not sue them for damages, a divided Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices said federal law protecting religious liberty allows for suits against state prison systems, but not employees of the prison.
The decision came in the case of a devout Rastafarian in Louisiana. Damon Landor had grown dreadlocks for nearly two decades. He had three weeks left in a five-month prison term when he was transferred to another prison in Louisiana.
He had with him a copy of a federal appeals court opinion that said Rastafarian inmates had a protected religious right to wear dreadlocks.
Congress in 2000 adopted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act to protect religious liberty.
But the guards threw the appeals court decision in the trash, and the warden ordered the guards to handcuff Landor to a chair and shave his head.
Shortly after he was released, Landor sued the warden and the guards for violating the 2000 law, known as RLUIPA, which promised “appropriate relief” to those whose rights were violated.
But a federal judge, the 5th Circuit Court and now the Supreme Court have tossed out Landor’s suit.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote for the six conservatives.
He explained that when the federal government gives states money for prisons, education, healthcare and other matters, it can require them to follow the law but it does not authorize private lawsuits against their employees.
“To know that is enough to know the Court of Appeals was correct. Mr. Landor does not have a federal RLUIPA cause of action against the officers,” Gorsuch wrote. “Congress may terminate funds if a recipient fails to abide by the conditions,” he said, but “lacks regulatory authority to impose liability on them directly.”
The three liberals dissented.
“Today’s decision magically transforms a federal statute into an invitation to be accepted or declined, deemed binding only if each particular defendant has explicitly agreed to be penalized,” wrote Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “Prisoners like Landor who suffer violations of their religious freedom in state prisons — no matter how blatant — will often be left remediless.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan agreed.
The Roberts court has ruled repeatedly in favor of religious liberty claims in recent years.
The justices have said religious private schools are sometimes eligible for state funding, and they upheld a football coach’s right to pray on the field after games. Last year, they ruled for a group of Maryland parents who wanted their children to “opt out” of reading classes that featured books that offended their religious beliefs.
While most of the plaintiffs were Christians, that is not true in all of them. In 2015, the court ruled 9-0 for a Muslim prisoner in Arkansas who sued and won under RLUIPA because he was denied the right to grow a short beard in accordance with his religious beliefs.
Civil liberties advocates denounced Tuesday’s decision because it creates a right but with no remedy for violations.
“Our justice system is built on the promise of accountability when rights are violated,” said Rachel Rossi, president of the Alliance for Justice. “If there is no remedy for such a transgression, then there is no justice. This ruling will further erode critical civil rights protections of the far too many incarcerated people in this country.”
Rachel Laser, chief executive of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Tuesday’s decision “endangers the religious freedom of incarcerated people, like Damon Landor, who are particularly vulnerable to abuse and having unnecessary burdens placed on their religious exercise. Once again, we see a court that will bend over backward for the religious freedom of Christians, but allows the government to trample the religious freedom of non-Christians.”
Notre Dame law professor Richard Garnett said there was no question the prison guard “acted outrageously” when he forcibly shaved Landor’s head in violation of his religious beliefs.
“But as the court majority saw it, the case is not about religious freedom,” he said, but whether a federal law “authorizes money-damages lawsuits against state employees personally.”
He said the ruling means states must “put in place policies and remedies that will protect vulnerable inmates from abuses like the one suffered by Mr. Landor.”
