July 29, 2026

In 2020, Damon Landor, a Rastafarian who had taken the Nazarite Vow promising not to cut his hair, was held down and shaved by guards at a Louisiana correctional facility, even after he handed them a court decision affirming his rights. After his release, Landor sued under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), the federal law protecting the religious rights of incarcerated people.

Last month, in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, the Supreme Court held that state prison employees cannot be sued for money damages under RLUIPA without their consent, even when a religious liberty violation is undisputed.

In her June op-ed for Religion News Service, LRRP Director Liz Reiner Platt uses the case to show how religious rights are quietly narrowed by a web of legal doctrines, including sovereign and qualified immunity, the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and nonreviewability rules that systematically disadvantage the most vulnerable claimants. As Platt writes, the Landor decision is not a deviation from the Court’s expansive view of religious liberty. It is a longstanding pattern, in which religious freedom in America depends heavily on who is asking.

The American Bar Association’s Civil Rights and Civics Institute has released a video in its Religious Freedom series in which Liz Reiner Platt breaks down the Landor decision and what it means for religious rights more broadly.

This episode was moderated by Rahmah Abdulaleem, Executive Director of KARAMAH: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights, Vice-Chair of the ABA's Religious Freedom Committee, and a contributor to LRRP’s own Black Religious Liberty Curriculum.

Liz’s argument—that a religious-liberty win on paper can still leave the most vulnerable without recourse— resonated across a wide range of outlets covering the Landor decision:

• The New Republic, Charles McCrary's "The Ultimate Goal of the Right's 'Religious Liberty' Crusade" cites Platt on why prison employees are "unlikely to agree to" being sued under the Court's new standard.

• BJC's Respecting Religion podcast, "S7, Ep. 12: A Disappointing Religious Freedom Decision to End the SCOTUS Term," with Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman, features Liz's RNS op-ed in its analysis and show notes.

• Tangle, "The Supreme Court's Religious Liberties Ruling" quotes Platt in its roundup: "Without any threat of financial punishment, employees of state jails and prisons can trample inmates' religious rights with impunity."

• Friendly Atheist, Hemant Mehta's "SCOTUS Says Rastafarian Can't Sue Prison Guards Who Violated His Faith" quotes Liz on why after-the-fact accommodations come too late once the harm is done.

• Freethought Today, the "Overheard" column (August 2026) excerpts Platt's line that religious rights "are mediated, shaped and limited by a larger legal system that frequently fails to protect the most vulnerable."

• Dr. Allison Wiltz, "Do Black People Have Equal Religious Protections in America?" takes up the same question at the heart of Liz's piece, examining Landor and Justice Jackson's dissent.

This month, LRRP Director Liz Reiner Platt advised Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg on her new essay, "A Jewish Case for AI Work Exemptions," which argues that Jewish workers may have religious grounds to request accommodations exempting them from using generative AI, drawing on Jewish teachings against benefiting from stolen property, the duty of honest attribution, obligations to protect the environment and human health, and the imperative to preserve moral responsibility.

The Law, Rights and Religion Project at Union Theological Seminary works to advance a vision of religious liberty that protects everyone—not just those with the most political power. If this newsletter was forwarded to you, you can subscribe here.