Fact Check: "Prison guards tossed out legal ruling protecting religious prisoners' rights."
What We Know
The claim revolves around the case of Damon Landor, a Rastafarian inmate in Louisiana whose dreadlocks were forcibly shaved by prison guards. This action allegedly violated a prior ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which stated that Rastafarian inmates must be allowed to keep their dreadlocks under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) of 2000. According to reports, when Landor presented a copy of this ruling to a guard, it was thrown in the trash, leading to his hair being cut against his will (New York Times, USA Today).
The Supreme Court is set to decide whether Landor can sue prison officials for monetary damages due to this violation of his religious rights, as the state argues that the law does not permit such lawsuits (New York Times, USA Today). The Louisiana Attorney General condemned the actions of the guards but maintained that the law does not allow for personal liability in this case (New York Times).
Analysis
The claim that "prison guards tossed out legal ruling protecting religious prisoners' rights" is supported by multiple sources that detail the events surrounding Landor's case. The act of throwing away the legal ruling is documented in his lawsuit, where he states that a guard discarded the court's decision that protected his right to maintain his dreadlocks for religious reasons (New York Times, USA Today).
However, the context is crucial. While the guards did discard the ruling, the legal implications of this action are still being debated in court. The Fifth Circuit's ruling that Landor cannot sue for damages under the RLUIPA complicates the narrative. The court condemned the treatment Landor received but ultimately ruled against allowing him to seek financial compensation (New York Times).
The reliability of the sources is high, as they come from established news organizations that provide thorough coverage of legal issues. However, it is important to note that the situation is still evolving, with the Supreme Court's decision pending. This means that while the guards' actions can be seen as dismissive of legal protections, the ultimate legal ramifications are yet to be fully resolved.
Conclusion
The claim is Partially True. While it is accurate that prison guards discarded a legal ruling that was meant to protect Landor's religious rights, the broader context reveals that the legal system is still determining the implications of this action. The guards' behavior was indeed a violation of Landor's rights, but the legal framework surrounding the ability to sue them for damages remains unclear and is currently under review by the Supreme Court.
