Skip to main content

RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT OF 2000

Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety

Issues

Are monetary damages permissible against a government official for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000?

 

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) by a government official allows for an individual to seek monetary damages against that official in their individual capacity. Landor contends that RLUIPA should be interpreted identically to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), which allows for individual-capacity monetary damages against a government official. Landor also argues that the Spending Clause of the United States Constitution permits RLUIPA to allow for these damages. The Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety argues that RLUIPA is distinct from RFRA precisely because the Spending Clause of the Constitution precludes individual liability of state officials, so RFRA and RLUIPA should not be interpreted identically. This case directly impacts freedom of religion rights in prisons, specifically for religious minorities, and the deterrence of future violations of those rights.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Are monetary damages permissible against a government official for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000?

Incarcerated in 2020 for approximately six months, Damon Landor was held in three different correctional facilities in Louisiana. Landor v.

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT OF 2000