Last term, the Supreme Court heard oral argument for an appeal from the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, 82 F.4th 337 (2023). In that case, a state prisoner sued the Louisiana Department of Corrections and the prison warden asserting claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) because two prison guards forcibly shaved off the prisoner’s dreadlocks even though they were a devout Rastafarian.
The question before the 5th Circuit was whether damages were available against public officials in their individual capacities under RLUIPA’s statement that “[a] person may . . .obtain appropriate relief against a government.” 42 U.S. Code § 2000cc-2(a) (emphasis added)
In particular, the 5th Circuit addressed the constitutional basis for RLUIPA under the U.S. Constitution’s spending clause (Art. 1, Section 8, Clause 1) and why this prohibited the imposition of damages against individual public officials. While damages against officials in their individual capacities were found by the Supreme Court in Tanzin v. Tanvir, 592 U.S. 43 (2020) to be available under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)—RLUIPA’s sister statute—the 5th Circuit in Landor emphasized that the constitutional basis for the Court’s holding related to RFRA was distinct from the constitutional basis for RLUIPA. Landor, 82 F.4th at 343. While RFRA relied on the Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, RLUIPA relies on the Spending Clause and Commerce clause for its constitutional legitimacy. Id. citing Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352, 357 (2015).
Under the spending clause, only direct recipients of federal funds can be held liable for damages by legislation enacted pursuant that provision. Id. at 344. Therefore, the 5th Circuit reasoned that because prison officials are not direct recipients of federal funds, they therefore cannot be held liable under RLUIPA.
The Supreme Court now gets the opportunity to address these issues. On appeal, the question presented to the Court was “whether an individual may sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of RLUIPA.”[1] During oral argument the justices appeared to zero in on whether public officials were on notice that when they accepted federal funds, that they would also be subject to a RLUIPA damages remedy; overall the Court appeared skeptical.[2]
A decision in Landor is expected in June or July of this year, and it has the possibility of greatly affecting when damages remedies are available to RLUIPA plaintiffs. The attorneys Dalton & Tomich, PLC will be keeping a close eye on this case. If you are wondering whether you have a claim under RLUIPA and are curious what remedies are available to you, we would be happy to take your call.
[1] Petition for Writ of Certiorari at i, Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, No. 23-1197 (June 23, 2025).
[2] Amy Howe, Court appears skeptical of prison inmate’s religious liberty Claim, SCOTUSblog (November 10, 2025), https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/11/court-appears-skeptical-of-prison-inmates-religious-liberty-claim/#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20on%20Monday,or%20under%20a%20%E2%80%9Crastacap.%E2%80%9D
