This week the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, a case which could greatly change the paradigm of suits brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et al (“RLUIPA”).
Congress unanimously passed RLUIPA in 2000 and President Clinton signed it into law in September of 2000. The law was passed after the Supreme Court held the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) was unconstitutional as applied to the states. Both laws were passed in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which held neutral laws of general applicability are not subject to strict scrutiny even if they burden religious exercise.
In RLUIPA Congress sought to protect religious exercise in two specific instances: (1) for institutionalized, that is imprisoned, individuals and (2) in the land use context. The law prohibits state and local governments from substantially burdening religious exercise, from treating religious exercise on less than equal terms with secular activity, from discriminating against religious exercise and from unreasonably limiting religious exercise.
In Landor the Court will address the question of whether a government official may be sued in their individual capacity for damages for violations of RLUIPA. The case arises from the decision of Department of Corrections officers to shave the head of a prisoner who is a Rastafarian. As part of his religion the man took a vow not to cut his hair. Worse still, the inmate informed the officers of his religious beliefs and provided them with a Fifth Circuit case which held RLUIPA prevent prison officials from forcing Rastafarians to cut their dreadlocks. The officers threw these materials in the trash and forcibly cut the prisoners hair. In this action the former prisoner seeks monetary damages from the offending guards for violating his rights. However, the district court and Fifth Circuit ruled that RLUIPA does not authorize suits against officials in their individual capacity.
The Court recently held that RFRA allows plaintiffs to seek monetary damages against government officials in their individual capacity. Tanzin v. Tanvir, 592 U.S. 43 (2020). In theory, this would indicate the Court will hold RLUIPA also authorizes such suits since RFRA and RLUIPA are considered “sister” statutes and generally analyzed in a similar fashion. See Landor v. Louisiana Dep’t of Corrs. & Pub. Safety, 93 F.4th 259, 264 (5th Cir. 2024) (Oldham J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc).
A holding by the Supreme Court that RLUIPA does allow plaintiffs to sue government officials in their individual capacities would have wide ranging implications. Obviously, it would benefit prisoners such as Mr. Landor by allowing them to personally hold responsible corrections officers who violate RLUIPA.
However, such a holding would, in theory, also apply in the land use context. Thus, zoning officers, planning commissioners and city councilmembers who violate the rights of religious organizations through the adoption and implementation of their zoning policies would also be subject to suit in their individual capacity. One would hope that the potential of being held personally liable for RLUIPA violations would caution these officials to enact and apply zoning ordinances with even increased care with respect to the treatment of religious organizations. In the situations where such caution is not taken, allowing churches and religious not-for-profit corporations to recover damages from the offending officials ensures the offenders are held publicly accountable for their actions. More importantly the recovery of damages from these individuals ensures the religious plaintiff is compensated for the injuries it sustained and serves as a further deterrent for government officials and elected officials from discriminating against religious entities.
About Dalton + Tomich
Established in 2010, Dalton + Tomich PLC is comprised of religious liberty, land use, denominational trust law, and business law attorneys. Learn more about our services at https://www.daltontomich.com/
