Rastafarian loses
I hope you aren't missing the point in the article. Just like their 360 degree turn on the Mississippi map as racially biased, so too they've turned away from "religious right." Unless of course they don't consider Rastafarianism a religion. Do you think if a black prison guard had cut a Sikh's hair or A Jew's earlock.the ruling would be the same...even from these right wing supremacists?
Interesting, not too long ago IN JAMAICA a female cop cut a young lady's hair. Her mom swore that she'll ensure that's the last time "authorities" will cut A Rasta's hair.
@trev114
I couldn't read the Post article as its behind a paywall - does it mention that the Trump administration was supporting the appeal?
If you look at the actual Supreme Court decision, it addresses something I was left wondering after reading a few media reports - if individual officers can't be personally sued, what about the Louisiana prison department itself?
Relying on that provision, inmate Damon Landor brought this
RLUIPA lawsuit against LDOC as well as some of the prison system’s
individual officers in their personal capacities, seeking damages from
them. Mr. Landor is a Rastafarian whose religious convictions require
him to leave his hair uncut. He claims that LDOC officers—despite
being aware of his religious beliefs—forcibly shaved his head. The of-
ficers moved to dismiss, arguing that while their employer LDOC may
have agreed to answer certain private suits under RLUIPA, they were
not parties to any such agreement, and therefore Mr. Landor had no
federal cause of action against them. The district court dismissed Mr.
Landor’s RLUIPA claims against both the officers and LDOC. On ap-
peal, Mr. Landor challenged only the dismissal of his claim against the
individual officers. The Fifth Circuit declined to revive that portion of
his suit, holding that RLUIPA does not permit suits against officers in
their individual capacities.
Why would the claim against LDOC have been discontinued when that would appear to be the stronger half of the case? Did Landor reach any kind of financial settlement with LDOC? Were the officers involved sanctioned in any way by their employer?
@trev114
Dreadlocks can't lick him pipe in peace, now dem can't grow dem locks... C'mon man.🤔
@KTom
some good questions KT. America is not a real place!!!! Imagine the SCOTUS 6-3 decision cites that it is the institution and not individual officers who signed and is bound by the ruling to not violate the man's religious freedom to grow his hair. Therefore, the officers aren't liable. The man presented the document to the prison official who threw it away. Again I ask, would that have been done to a Sikh's hair or Orthodox Jew's earlock?
@KTom
He couldn't sue LDOC (an arm of the state) because of SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. Guess Congress will now find a way to passa bill that forces states to have employees sign employment agreements accepting the conditions the state agreed to when they received the money. What a pretzel Gorsuch twisted into in writing that decision!