• The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against Damon Landor, a former Louisiana inmate, who sought to sue prison officials for shaving his dreadlocks.
• Landor's case centered on violations of his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
• The ruling specifies that RLUIPA does not allow lawsuits against individual prison staff for monetary damages.
• Three liberal justices dissented, arguing the decision undermined religious freedoms and accountability.
• Advocates criticized the ruling for impeding justice for inmates facing religious discrimination.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling on June 23, 2026, denying former Louisiana inmate Damon Landor the right to sue prison officials after they forcibly shaved his dreadlocks, which he claimed violated his Rastafarian religious beliefs. The court ruled 6-3 that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) does not permit lawsuits against individual prison officials for monetary damages, which upholds lower court decisions that dismissed Landor's case, according to CBS News and Reuters.

Landor, who had maintained his dreadlocks as part of his faith for almost 20 years, was subjected to the shaving shortly before completing a five-month prison sentence for a non-violent drug offense. After being transferred to the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center, he provided proof of his religious accommodations but was nevertheless restrained and had his hair cut against his will, as documented in court records, according to BBC and Los Angeles Times.

Justice Neil Gorsuch stated that the RLUIPA does not allow federal claims against individual officers since those employees did not consent to be sued under the law when it was enacted in 2000. This ruling has sparked a strong dissent from the court's three liberal justices, who expressed concerns over the implications for inmates' rights and the accountability of state officials for civil rights violations, as discussed in CBS News and Los Angeles Times.

Civil liberties advocates have criticized the decision, stating it could further enable violations of religious rights for incarcerated individuals, citing that "without a remedy for such a transgression, there is no justice," according to Los Angeles Times and Reuters.