The University of St. Thomas School of Law Religious Liberty Appellate Clinic filed an amicus curiae brief with the United States Supreme Court in the case Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, et al. The case asks the Court to decide whether individuals in state institutions can sue state or local officials, in addition to or instead of the government entity, for monetary damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA).
The case is receiving national attention because of the potential implications of a ruling in favor of the petitioner, Damon Landor.
In 2020, Louisiana prison officials forcibly shaved Landor’s head, violating the Nazarite Vow central to his Rastafarian faith, which forbids cutting one’s hair.
He sued the State of Louisiana and the prison officials for violating his religious rights, but the district court dismissed his claims against the individual prison officials, stating that RLUIPA does not allow private plaintiffs to bring claims against individual officials for money damages. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit later upheld that ruling.
The Religious Liberty Clinic’s Supreme Court brief, co-written by Professor Thomas Berg, asserts that under RLUIPA, a government official can be held personally liable for violating an inmate’s religious liberty. The brief was joined by major civil rights and religious freedom organizations from across the ideological spectrum, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its Louisiana affiliate, the Christian Legal Society (CLS), and the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.
The brief argues that RLUIPA allows a person incarcerated in a state prison that receives federal funding to bring a claim against the prison officials in their individual capacities. It emphasizes that such claims flow clearly from the Court's 2020 ruling in Tanzin v. Tanvir, which found that “appropriate relief” can include money damages in lawsuits brought against government officials under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), RLUIPA's "sister statute" from which RLUIPA was derived.
“A Supreme Court ruling in Landor’s favor is vital for protecting religious liberty and ensuring officials’ accountability in state prisons, which house the vast majority of the nation’s inmates,” Professor Berg said. “Compensatory damages are the key form of relief in some cases, for example where prisoners have finished their sentence or have been transferred to another facility. It’s notable, and gratifying, that organizations of all ideological views joined our brief emphasizing that bipartisan message.”
Co-counsel on the brief are Douglas Laycock, distinguished law professor emeritus of the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Virginia, and Steven McFarland and Laura Nammo of the Christian Legal Society Center for Law & Religious Freedom.
Oral argument is scheduled for Nov. 10, 2025.
About the Religious Liberty Appellate Clinic
The Religious Liberty Appellate Clinic is one of 10 legal clinics at the University of St. Thomas School of Law. The clinic’s primary clients are national civil liberties organizations and national religious organizations. Each year, St. Thomas law students apply to participate in the clinic and, under Professor Berg’s guidance, write appellate briefs – primarily amicus curiae briefs – in major cases involving religious liberty in the U.S. Supreme Court, lower federal courts and state appellate courts. The clinic supports religious freedom for all faiths and has filed briefs on behalf of Muslim, Jewish, and Christian adherents and groups.
