A Supreme Court case about dreadlocks could end up gutting Medicaid |
It’s hard to imagine a more clear cut violation of a federal law than what happened to Damon Landor.
Landor is Rastafarian and does not cut his hair as part of his religious practice. While serving a five-month prison sentence on drug charges, however, Louisiana prison officials handcuffed him to a chair, held him down, and shaved his head. They did so, moreover, despite the fact that Landor brought a copy of a federal court decision establishing that he had a right, under federal religious liberty law, to keep his hair long while incarcerated.
And yet, it seemed very clear during oral arguments in Landor’s case on Monday — the case is known as Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections — that at least five, and possibly as many as six, justices will vote against Landor.
Key Takeaways
Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections involves a straightforward violation of an incarcerated man’s religious rights. The case turns, however, on an arcane rule governing whether he may sue the officers who violated his rights. It is likely that the Court’s Republican majority will rule against this man, and they may use the case to render several important — and seemingly unrelated — provisions of federal law unconstitutional.The reason why is that the specific legal issue before the Supreme Court is not whether Louisiana prison officials violated a law known as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, or RLUIPA. Pretty much everyone concedes that Louisiana officials broke this law when they forcibly shaved Landor’s head.
Rather, the legal question before the Court is whether Landor may sue the officials who harmed him and collect money damages from them. While the Supreme Court’s Republican majority is typically very sympathetic to plaintiffs alleging violations of their religious rights — especially when those plaintiffs are conservative Christians — this case also presented two other issues where Republican judges tend to be much less sympathetic to plaintiffs seeking to vindicate their rights.
The first is a question of whether individuals who are injured by law enforcement officers may sue those officers directly. The Court’s Republican majority is often hostile to these suits and has basically shut down plaintiffs’ ability to sue federal law enforcement officers for money damages. Although the Landor case involves state prison officials, it is ultimately a........