2026-06-23T14:18:32.596Z / reuters.com
华盛顿，6月23日（路透社）——美国最高法院周二驳回一名拉斯塔法里男子起诉路易斯安那州监狱官员的诉求。此前狱警将他按倒并强行剃成光头，此举违反了他的宗教信仰，该案是依据一项保护被监禁者免受宗教歧视的联邦法律提起的。
最高法院以6票赞成、3票反对的裁决支持下级法院驳回达蒙·兰多诉讼的决定，理由是相关法律不允许他以金钱损害赔偿为由起诉个别监狱官员和狱警。该裁决由保守派大法官撰写，兰多的宗教信仰要求他留长发。
路透社每日简报通讯可为您提供开启一天所需的全部新闻。点击此处订阅。
最高法院的三名自由派大法官对该裁决提出异议，裁决意见书由保守派大法官尼尔·戈萨奇执笔。
这部法律名为《2000年宗教土地使用和机构化人员法案》（RLUIPA），禁止州和地方政府在土地使用法规中进行宗教歧视，同时保护被关押在监狱、看守所等机构内人员的宗教权利。
最高法院裁定，由于该法律涉及宪法所谓的“支出条款”赋予国会的权力，该法案只能对实际接收联邦资金的州或政府实体施加条件，而不能针对自身未获得联邦资金的个别雇员——除非他们同意受此约束。
戈萨奇写道，由于监狱官员从未同意自己会依据RLUIPA面临诉讼，“兰多先生对他们的诉讼无法继续进行，就如同违约之诉不能针对从未订立合同的被告提起一样”。
自由派大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊在异议意见中指出，RLUIPA是一部法律，而非合同。
“今日的裁决将联邦法案神奇地转变为一份可接受或拒绝的邀约，仅当每位特定被告明确同意接受处罚时才具有约束力，”杰克逊写道，她的异议得到了索尼娅·索托马约尔大法官和埃琳娜·卡根大法官的支持。
唐纳德·特朗普政府时期支持兰多，敦促最高法院重启此案。
目前拥有6票保守派多数席位的最高法院近年来在一系列裁决中扩大了宗教人士和宗教机构的权利。该案于去年11月进行了口头辩论。
兰多用了20年时间将头发留至及膝的长发。2020年，在因持有毒品被判五个月监禁即将结束时，兰多被转移到路易斯安那州科顿波特的雷蒙德·拉博德惩教中心。
在那里，兰多提醒官员，总部位于新奥尔良的美国第五巡回上诉法院曾在2017年的一桩案件中裁定，路易斯安那州剃除拉斯塔法里教徒头发的政策违反了2000年的这部法律。
根据法庭文件，兰多甚至递上了该裁决书的副本，但一名狱警将其扔进了垃圾桶。
随后，兰多被手铐铐在椅子上，遭到按倒并被剃光头发。
居住在路易斯安那州斯莱德尔的兰多提起了诉讼，但一名联邦法官驳回了他的案件。2023年，第五巡回上诉法院维持了这一裁决，认定相关法律不允许个别官员个人承担金钱损害赔偿责任。
杰克逊在异议意见中表示，遭遇宗教自由侵犯的囚犯如今往往将无法获得救济。
“侵犯囚犯法定权利的行为很可能会频繁发生，因为由国家授权的监狱官员几乎没有动力遵守联邦法律，即便有人将法律交到他们手中，”杰克逊写道。
兰多的律师称该法案类似于1993年的《宗教自由恢复法》，后者禁止联邦政府侵犯宗教自由。
2020年，最高法院在一桩案件中允许依据《宗教自由恢复法》提出金钱损害赔偿诉求。该案中，三名美国穆斯林公民起诉联邦调查局探员，他们指控探员因自己拒绝成为线人而将他们列入政府的“禁飞名单”。
安德鲁·钟报道；威尔·邓汉姆编辑
US Supreme Court won’t let Rastafarian man shaved bald in prison sue guards
2026-06-23T14:18:32.596Z / reuters.com
A general view of the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices are expected to issue opinions on pending cases, in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 18, 2026. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz/File Photo
WASHINGTON, June 23 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court refused on Tuesday to let a Rastafarian man sue state prison officials in Louisiana after guards held him down and shaved him bald in violation of his religious beliefs in a case brought under a federal law protecting incarcerated people from religious discrimination.
The court in a 6-3 ruling powered by its conservative justices upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss Damon Landor’s lawsuit because it found the statute at issue did not permit him to sue the individual prison officials and guards for monetary damages. Landor’s religion requires him to let his hair grow.
The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.
The court’s three liberal justices dissented from the ruling, which was authored by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch.
The law, called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, or RLUIPA, prohibits religious discrimination by state and local governments in land-use regulations and also protects the religious rights of people confined to institutions such as prisons and jails.
The court ruled that because the law at issue implicates the power of Congress under the Constitution’s so-called Spending Clause, the measure may impose conditions only on the state or government entity that is the actual recipient of federal funds, not individual employees who do not themselves receive the funds – unless they consent.
Since the prison officials never agreed that they would be subject to lawsuits under RLUIPA, “Mr. Landor’s case cannot proceed against them any more than a breach of contract action might proceed against a defendant who never formed a contract,” Gorsuch wrote.
Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing in dissent, noted that RLUIPA is a law, not a contract.
“Today’s decision magically transforms a federal statute into an invitation to be accepted or declined, deemed binding only if each particular defendant has explicitly agreed to be penalized,” wrote Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
President Donald Trump’s administration backed Landor, urging the Supreme Court to revive the case.
The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, had expanded the rights of religious people and institutions in a series of rulings in recent years. It heard arguments in the case in November.
Landor grew his hair over a span of 20 years into long locks that reached his knees. In 2020, near the end of a five-month prison sentence for drug possession, Landor was transferred to the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center in Cottonport, Louisiana.
There, Landor reminded officials that the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled in a 2017 case that Louisiana’s policy of cutting the hair of Rastafarians violated the 2000 law.
Landor even handed over a copy of that ruling, but a guard threw it in the trash, according to court documents.
Landor was then handcuffed to a chair, held down and shaved.
Landor, who lives in Slidell, Louisiana, sued, but a federal judge threw out his case. In 2023, the 5th Circuit upheld that decision, concluding that the law at issue does not allow individual officials to be personally held liable for money damages.
In her dissent, Jackson said prisoners who experience religious freedom violations will now often be left without a remedy.
“And encroachments on prisoners’ statutory rights are likely to happen with fair frequency, as state-empowered prison officials will have little incentive to abide by federal law, even if it is handed to them on a piece of paper,” Jackson wrote.
Landor’s lawyers have called the statute similar to a 1993 law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that prohibits religious infringement by the federal government.
In 2020, the Supreme Court allowed for monetary damages claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in a case involving a bid by three Muslim U.S. citizens to sue FBI agents who they accused of placing the men on the government’s “no-fly list” for refusing to become informants.
Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham
发表回复