Legal Issue(s): Free Religious Exercise
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Case Status: Cert. granted
Center's Role: Amicus
Case Description
Congress has enacted two “sister” statutes to protect religious exercise: the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq., and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq. RLUIPA, which also protects religious land uses from discrimination through zoning restrictions, offers protection for the religious rights of prisoners. In Tanzin v. Tanvir, 592 U.S. 43 (2020), the U.S. Supreme Court held that an individual may sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of RFRA. RLUIPA’s relevant language is identical, but, so far, it has not been interpreted to provide money damages against government officials.
Damon Landor is a Rastafarian. Dreadlocks hold a spiritual and cultural significance for adherents to the religion. He was incarcerated in 2020. At first, officials respected Landor’s religious practice of having long dreadlocks, but when he arrived at a correctional facility to finish the final weeks of his five-month sentence, the warden at the correctional facility ordered guards to cut his hair. State prison guards handcuffed him and held him down while shaving his hair, which had not been cut in almost 20 years.
After being released from prison, Landor sued for damages under RLUIPA. Lower courts dismissed his case. He then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which condemned the guards’ act but followed circuit precedent in ruling that damages from government officials in their individual capacities are not available under RLUIPA.
Landor asked the Fifth Circuit to review his case en banc, which was denied, but 15 of the 17 active judges (in concurrences and dissents) noted that Tanzin had or might have undercut the circuit precedent and that the Supreme Court should address the question.
Landor then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. The Center filed an amicus brief supporting Landor’s claim that RLUIPA authorizes such damage suits. On June 23, 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Landor’s appeal and consider whether an inmate can sue a government official in his individual capacity—meaning the official is personally liable—for violations of RLUIPA.
