How far does religious freedom go in prison? The Supreme Court will decide.

In its next term, the Supreme Court will take on a crucial case about a prisoner's ability to sue on the grounds of religious freedom. The basis of the case is a 2000 federal law that's supposed to protect the religious rights of incarcerated people, and now the court will determine just how far that law can go.

What is the crux of the case?

The lawsuit was originally brought by Damon Landor over his alleged mistreatment during a five-month prison term for drug possession in Louisiana in 2020. Landor is a "devout Rastafarian who pledged to 'let the locks of the hair of his head grow,' known as the Nazarite Vow," said CBS News, and had reportedly kept his hair long for almost 20 years.

During the first four months of his incarceration, the two prisons where Landor was housed "allowed him to keep his hair long," said CBS. But after he was transferred to a new site for the final three weeks of his term, guards allegedly "handcuffed Mr. Landor to a chair, held him down and shaved his head to the scalp," said The New York Times.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

This occurred despite Landor reportedly showing "prison officials a copy of a court ruling that dreadlocks grown for religious reasons should be accommodated," said USA Today. That ruling was based on a 2000 federal law related to religious freedoms in prison, and it is now up to the Supreme Court to decide whether that law allows prisoners to sue prison officials.

What is the bigger picture?

When the Supreme Court hears the case, it could go a long way toward a final say on religious freedoms for prisoners. The Court's conservative majority has been taking up numerous faith-based cases and in "recent years has repeatedly sided with religious interests and expanded the role of faith in public life," said The Washington Post. But while this has become a trend, the justices have not always voted in favor of religion, and last month they notably "deadlocked, 4-4, leaving in place an Oklahoma ruling that rejected a proposal for the nation's first religious public charter school."

Attorneys for Landor say the case goes beyond him and could have "widespread implications," said The Hill. Over "one million people are incarcerated in state prisons and local jails. Under the prevailing rule in the circuit courts, those individuals are deprived of a key remedy crucial to obtaining meaningful relief," the case petition to the Supreme Court reads.

But some officials are worried that this case could open the floodgates for prisoners to sue prison workers. "Serious consequences would flow from petitioner's view, if adopted," the state of Louisiana said in court filings. The "current staffing shortage in state prisons would only grow worse if current staff and potential job applicants learned that they would be personally liable for money damages."

It is still unclear which way the Supreme Court could lean, as the court took on the case "only after a lower court 'emphatically' condemned the ex-inmate's treatment as he seeks financial relief," said UPI. The Court will hear the case sometime during its next term, which begins in October 2025 and runs through June 2026.