Supreme Court will hear case of Rastafarian whose dreadlocks were shaved by Louisiana prison guards
The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear the appeal of a former Louisiana prison inmate whose dreadlocks were cut off by prison guards in violation of his religious beliefs.
The justices will review an appellate ruling that held that the former inmate, Damon Landor, could not sue prison officials for money damages under a federal law aimed at protecting prisoners' religious rights.
Landor, an adherent of the Rastafari religion, even carried a copy of a ruling by the appeals court in another inmate's case holding that cutting religious prisoners' dreadlocks violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
Landor hadn't cut his hair in nearly two decades when he entered Louisiana's prison system in 2020 on a five-month sentence. At his first two stops, officials respected his beliefs. But things changed when he got to the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center in Cottonport, about 80 miles (130 kilometers) northwest of Baton Rouge, for the final three weeks of his term.
A prison guard took the copy of the ruling Landor carried and tossed it in the trash, according to court records. Then the warden ordered guards to cut his dreadlocks. While two guards restrained him, a third shaved his head to the scalp, the records show.
Landor sued after his release, but lower courts dismissed the case. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lamented Landor's treatment but said the law doesn't allow him to hold prison officials liable for damages.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the fall.
Landor's lawyers argue that the court should be guided by its decision in 2021 allowing Muslim men to sue over their inclusion on the FBI's no-fly list under a sister statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
President Donald Trump 's Republican administration filed a brief supporting Landor's right to sue and urged the court to hear the case.
Louisiana asked the justices to reject the appeal, even as it acknowledged Landor's mistreatment.
Lawyers for the state wrote that 'the state has amended its prison grooming policy to ensure that nothing like petitioner's alleged experience can occur.'
The Rastafari faith is rooted in 1930s Jamaica, growing as a response by Black people to white colonial oppression. Its beliefs are a melding of Old Testament teachings and a desire to return to Africa. Its message was spread across the world in the 1970s by Jamaican music icons Bob Marley and Peter Tosh, two of the faith's most famous exponents.
The case is Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, 23-1197.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
30 minutes ago
- The Guardian
header
Fifa is facing new questions over the increasingly fraught World Cup next year, with the issue of how to treat Iran while the country is involved in a conflict with the co-host the US. There are no provisions within Fifa's regulations to prevent Iran from playing their group matches in the US, despite the country being subject to military action by the Trump administration and Iranian citizens being under a travel ban that prevents them from entering the country. The ban contains an exemption that could apply to players, staff or associated families with teams at the 2026 Fifa World Cup. Iran, who faced USA in the group stage of the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, qualified in March for their fourth consecutive World Cup. Although 2026 is also being hosted by Canada and Mexico, only by being given a specific slot in group A could Iran avoid playing in the US, with their matches then taking place in Mexico. If Iran won that group they would stay in Mexico for their last-32 game and any last-16 match. Should they go further – and they have never reached a World Cup knockout game – they would then play in the US. Fifa did not respond on Monday to a request for comment from the Guardian and will likely be considering its options before the World Cup draw, which is due to take place in December. The decision will be a difficult one for its president, Gianni Infantino, who has associated himself closely with President Donald Trump, who authorised the use of US bombs on Iranian nuclear sites last weekend. Infantino and the Fifa Council will have the final say on inclusion in the competition and the makeup of the draw, but the organising committee for Fifa competitions will be expected to have input. The committee has members from Canada, Mexico and Iran, and its chair is Uefa's president, Aleksander Ceferin. In 2022, his organisation announced that Ukraine and Belarus would be kept apart in Uefa competition draws, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and his action may provide an example for Fifa to follow. Before the World Cup draw in Qatar, the agreed draw constraints included limitations on where teams could be selected but this related only to a 'general principle' that no more than one team from each confederation (excluding Europe) should appear in a given group.
Reuters
32 minutes ago
- Reuters
Senate parliamentarian faults Republicans' plan to limit judges' power
June 23 (Reuters) - A U.S. Senate official has concluded that a Republican-drafted provision in President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending bill that would restrict the ability of judges to block government policies violates budgetary rules. The Senate's parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, advised over the weekend that the provision ran afoul of a Senate rule governing what can be included in budget reconciliation legislation that can be passed with a simple-majority vote and would instead need to be subject to a 60-vote threshold if it remained in the bill. Republicans, who control the Senate 53-47, intend to use complex budget rules to pass the so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" with a simple majority vote. The parliamentarian is a nonpartisan referee. Her decision could spell doom for the provision's inclusion in the ultimate legislation Congress passes because it would allow Democrats to challenge the vote on the floor and require Republicans to muster 60 votes to pass it. Congressional leaders hope to enact the overall bill in the coming days so Trump can sign it into law before July 4. The courts-related provision in the Senate version of the bill would limit the ability of judges to issue preliminary injunctions blocking federal policies unless the party suing posts a bond to cover the government's costs if the ruling is later overturned. The bond requirement differs from one tucked into the version of the bill the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed in May that would curb courts' power by curtailing the ability of judges to hold officials in contempt if they violate injunctions. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Sunday hailed the parliamentarian's assessment, saying Republicans had tried to "write Donald Trump's contempt for the courts into law — gutting judicial enforcement, defying the Constitution, and bulldozing the very rule of law that forms our democracy." The provision was drafted by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is led by Senator Chuck Grassley. He had argued the provision would ensure judges enforce an existing requirement that parties seeking a preliminary injunction provide a security bond to cover costs incurred by a defendant if a judge's ruling is later overturned. Judges rarely require such bonds when a lawsuit is not pitting two private parties against each other but instead challenging an alleged unlawful or unconstitutional government action. Several judges have denied the Trump administration's requests for bonds or issued nominal ones. Grassley in a statement on Sunday said Republicans are committed to using all available avenues to "ensure courts operate according to lawful and constitutional standards." Congressional Republicans have called for banning or curtailing nationwide injunctions blocking government policies after key parts of Trump's agenda have been stymied by such court rulings. The House in April voted 219-213 largely along party lines in favor of the No Rogue Rulings Act to do so, but the Senate has not yet taken up the measure. A White House memo in March directed heads of government agencies to request that plaintiffs post bonds if they are seeking an injunction against an agency policy. Such bonds can make obtaining an injunction a cost-prohibitive option in cases concerning multi-billion-dollar agenda items. Read more: US Senate Republicans seek to limit judges' power via Trump's tax-cut bill
Reuters
32 minutes ago
- Reuters
US court says worker's COVID safety concerns covered by labor law
June 23 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Monday agreed with the National Labor Relations Board that a Pennsylvania factory worker's critical comments about the plant remaining open in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic were protected by federal labor law. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected claims by Miller Plastic Products that the worker, Ronald Vincer, was not acting for the benefit of other employees when he made the comments at a 2020 meeting. "Vincer's statements and conduct reveal a belief that shutting down the facility, or alternatively implementing more stringent quarantine protocols if it remained open, was necessary to ensure employee safety. Thus, he raised concerns to improve conditions of employment," Circuit Judge Theodore McKee wrote. But the court said the NLRB, which in 2023 used the case to expand the type of worker conduct that it considers concerted activity and thus protected by federal labor law, must reconsider whether Miller fired Vincer about a week after the meeting because of his comments or for other, legitimate reasons. The five-member NLRB already had two vacancies when President Donald Trump took office in January and now lacks a quorum to decide cases after Trump fired Democratic Member Gwynne Wilcox, who is challenging her removal. An NLRB spokesman and lawyers for Miller and Vincer did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Miller claimed that Vincer was fired for performance issues and not because of his comments about keeping the plant open. But the company had also argued that Vincer's comments were not protected by the National Labor Relations Act because he was expressing concerns about his personal safety and not advocating on behalf of his coworkers. The board disagreed and also said that the test that a Republican majority had adopted in the 2019 case Alstate Maintenance to determine when conduct is concerted was flawed. That ruling said raising concerns in a group setting is not necessarily protected activity, and required workers to show evidence of prior group discussions on a topic to prove their conduct was protected. The board said that instead, it would consider the "totality of the circumstances" on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a worker had engaged in concerted activity. Miller appealed, arguing that it was unreasonable for the board to overturn the Alstate decision and that under that standard, Vincer's comments were not protected. The 3rd Circuit disagreed on both counts on Monday. McKee, an appointee of Democratic President Bill Clinton, wrote that the standard announced by the board was not entirely new and was instead a refinement of a series of rulings released since the 1980s. But the board did not adequately explain why it concluded that Vincer's termination resulted directly from his comments at the meeting, the panel found. McKee said the board should take another look at that claim while considering the credibility of workers who testified and the fact that three other employees were fired around the same time as Vincer. The panel included Circuit Judges D. Brooks Smith, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, and Luis Restrepo, who was appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama. The case is NLRB v. Miller Plastic Products, 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 23-2689. For Miller: Robert Bracken of Bracken Law Firm For the NLRB: Jared Cantor Read more: NLRB restores broader test for determining when labor law protects workers US judges question NLRB's broad protections for worker conduct US Supreme Court lets Trump keep labor board members sidelined for now
