David vs. Goliath Fight for Religious Freedom

Varun Mekala

November 2025

In constitutional law, the biggest fights often start with the smallest, most personal details. This isn't about a complex theory; this is about a man, his faith, and his locks of hair. This is Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections (LA DOC), a pivotal case that tests the very meaning of religious liberty inside prison walls.

The Louisiana Department of Corrections is a huge, bureaucratic machine that prioritizes order and discipline. For decades, that order often came at the expense of an incarcerated person's individual, personal freedom. For the institution, uniformity trumps individuality,

Enter Damon Landor. A devout Rastafarian, his faith was anchored by the Nazarite Vow, the sacred promise never to cut his hair. His dreadlocks were not a style choice; they were a living, growing, sacred ritual that he had nurtured for nearly two decades.

When Landor was transferred late in his sentence to a new facility, the system assaulted his dignity. He did everything required. He explained his beliefs, presented proof of prior accommodation, and handed the intake guard a printout of a federal court ruling already affirming that Rastafarians' hair was entitled to protection under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

How did the system respond? They threw the court decision in the trash and, ignoring all legal precedent and human dignity, forcibly pinned him down and shaved his head. The message was clear: the law applies only as far as we decide it does. Your rights mean nothing here.

The core question is as follows: is a right without a remedy a right at all? The violation was irreversible. The hair was shorn; the dignity stripped. An injunction was useless. The only meaningful way to hold the officials accountable for this wrong is through monetary compensation. The lower courts shielded the individual officers from liability, concluding technical legal readings meant RLUIPA could not be enforced against them personally for damages. But the argument that Landor is making before the Supreme Court is one of common sense: if an official can violate a federal law and then simply throw the ruling in the trash with zero personal liability, then that law is useless.

If the Supreme Court rules in Landor's favor, that's a powerful signal. It shows the badge isn't a license to trample on fundamental religious freedom. That means for every official who thinks they can toss a person's rights in the trash, there will be a real, personal consequence. This is the ultimate David vs. Goliath battle for accountability, dignity, and that sacred principle that every person, no matter where they are or what they've done, has a right to their faith.