Washington, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on November 10, 2025, heard arguments in the case of Damon Landor, a devout Rastafarian who is seeking damages after his waist-length dreadlocks were forcibly cut while he was serving time in a Louisiana prison.
Landor, who describes his dreadlocks as a sacred expression of his faith, is asking the court to allow him to sue individual officials of the Louisiana Department of Corrections for monetary damages, claiming they violated his constitutional right to religious freedom.
- Advertisement -
“Without damages, officials can literally treat the law like garbage,” his attorney Zachary Tripp told the justices during oral arguments.
Louisiana has since acknowledged that the treatment Landor endured was “antithetical to religious freedom” and has revised its prison grooming policies. However, the state maintains that federal law does not permit monetary damages against state officials sued in their individual capacities — an argument that appeared to resonate with several of the Court’s conservative justices, who currently hold a 6–3 majority.
Landor had been growing his dreadlocks for nearly two decades when, in 2020, prison guards forcibly cut his hair just three weeks before the end of a five-month sentence for drug possession. According to court records, Landor presented officers with a copy of a 2017 court ruling affirming that Rastafarians should be allowed to maintain their locks in accordance with their faith. One officer reportedly discarded the document before handcuffing Landor to a chair and shaving his head.
An appeals court previously condemned the guards’ actions as “egregious” but ruled that Landor could not sue the individual officers for damages.
Rastafarians, whose faith originated in Jamaica and was popularized globally by reggae legend Bob Marley, regard their hair as a divine covenant, symbolizing a deep spiritual connection and rejection of oppression.
The case has drawn an unusual alliance of legal advocates from across the political spectrum. While the Supreme Court has historically been reluctant to approve damages suits against individual government officials, it has also been increasingly sympathetic to religious liberty claims — a tension that could make Landor’s case a landmark test of both principles.
