Courts and religious freedom: when rules get twisted

Damon Landor kept his dreadlocks for over twenty years as part of his Rastafari faith. When he entered a Louisiana prison in 2020, he brought a court decision that said Rastafari prisoners couldn’t be forced to cut their hair. The guards ignored it anyway, shaving his head while he was restrained. The Supreme Court then ruled 6-3 that he couldn’t sue the guards, even though they broke a law meant to protect religious freedom in prisons. The Court’s decision turned on a technicality. The law, RLUIPA, blocks prisons that take federal money from imposing big burdens on prisoners’ religion. But the justices said the law doesn’t make individual guards personally responsible. It’s like saying if a company promises to follow safety rules in exchange for government funds, only the company—not the workers—can be punished if someone gets hurt. The Court admitted Congress could fix this by writing the law differently. So why take the case at all?One clue might be abortion. Federal law requires hospitals to stabilize emergencies, including life-threatening pregnancies. Red states have tried to ban abortion even in emergencies, leading to court battles. The same legal logic used in Landor could let states ignore this rule too. If guards can’t be sued for violating religious freedom, maybe hospitals can’t be sued for denying emergency abortions. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued the Court was being unfairly picky. She said the law’s goal matters more than the exact wording. But the majority stuck to their narrow reading. Many lower courts already agree with this approach, so the surprise isn’t the ruling—it’s why the Supreme Court chose to step in at all. Landor’s case shows how small legal details can have huge real-world effects. Laws meant to protect people can end up protecting institutions instead. The question now is whether Congress will fix the gaps—or if courts will keep finding new ways to limit rights without actually changing the laws.