The Supreme Court deliberated Monday on a significant religious freedom case involving a former Louisiana inmate seeking compensation after prison officials forcibly cut off his dreadlocks, which he had grown as part of his Rastafari faith.

Damon Landor, who served a five-month sentence in 2020, wants to sue for monetary damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal law designed to protect inmates’ religious rights. His case has drawn attention to the broader question of whether incarcerated individuals can hold prison officials financially accountable for religious freedom violations.

During the two-hour arguments, the Court’s three liberal justices appeared to support Landor’s position, but it remains unclear whether any of the six conservative justices will join them to form the necessary majority.

The incident occurred at Raymond Laborde Correctional Center in Cottonport, Louisiana, about 80 miles northwest of Baton Rouge. According to court records, Landor arrived with a copy of an appeals court ruling from another inmate’s case that established cutting religious prisoners’ dreadlocks violated federal law. While officials at his first two detention facilities respected his religious practices, the situation changed dramatically during the final three weeks of his term.

Court documents reveal that a prison guard discarded the legal document Landor carried for protection. Subsequently, the warden ordered guards to cut his dreadlocks, which Landor had grown for nearly two decades as an expression of his Rastafari beliefs. Two guards restrained Landor while a third shaved his head completely.

“Look, the facts of this case are egregious,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett acknowledged during arguments. However, she also expressed concern that every lower court that has examined similar claims has ruled against inmates seeking damages under RLUIPA.

The Rastafari faith, which began in 1930s Jamaica as a response by Black people to white colonial oppression, blends Old Testament teachings with a desire to return to Africa. The movement gained international prominence in the 1970s through Jamaican musicians Bob Marley and Peter Tosh. For practitioners like Landor, dreadlocks represent a deeply meaningful spiritual expression.

The Supreme Court may find guidance in their own 2020 decision that allowed Muslim men to sue over their inclusion on the FBI’s no-fly list under a similar statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Notably, the Justice Department has shifted its position since that case and now supports Landor’s argument that RLUIPA permits lawsuits for damages against state officials who violate inmates’ religious rights.

Louisiana officials, while not defending the treatment Landor received, maintain that RLUIPA does not authorize damage claims against prison officials. The state has noted in court filings that it has since “amended its prison grooming policy to ensure that nothing like petitioner’s alleged experience can occur” again.

Following his release, Landor sued prison officials, but both the district court and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed his case. The appeals court expressed sympathy for Landor’s mistreatment but concluded that the law does not allow him to hold prison officials financially liable.

The case highlights ongoing tensions between institutional security concerns in prisons and the constitutional protection of religious freedoms. Religious rights advocates argue that without the possibility of financial penalties, there are insufficient deterrents to prevent similar violations in the future.

A decision in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections is expected by spring 2024. The ruling could have far-reaching implications for how religious freedom cases involving incarcerated individuals are handled nationwide and whether monetary damages will be available as a remedy for violations.