In its upcoming term, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide a handful of cases that could impact the religious freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The two cases with direct religious freedom implications involve narrow legal questions but are important because they could provide important routes for religious minorities, in particular, to get relief when their rights are infringed.
Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety
One of the most compelling cases involves a Rastafarian prisoner, Damon Landor, whose religious beliefs include a commitment not to cut his hair. He had kept that commitment for decades, including in prison, but on moving to a new facility in Louisiana, his dreadlocks were shaved off while he was handcuffed to a chair. This, despite a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that specifically held that such an action would violate a federal statute, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
After being released from prison, Landor sued the prison system and some prison officials and guards for their actions. This raised a legal question: could the officials be sued not as officials charged with enforcing a policy but as individuals who had allegedly violated a federal law? The lower court held they could not, and the Supreme Court will decide that question.
Another federal statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, on which RLUIPA is based, has been interpreted to allow these types of lawsuits against individual officials in a private capacity (meaning they would be personally liable for damages) rather than just as agents of the government. Both statutes use the same language to describe the ways the laws can be enforced. So, the Court will have to determine whether there is some reason the relevant language should be interpreted differently in this case.
Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi
A Christian, Gabriel Olivier, who felt called to share his beliefs, did so on a public sidewalk outside a city facility. When he did so, he was ordered by police to go to a special area designated for protests. He declined because of the isolation of that area, and he was charged by the city with violating a city ordinance regulating demonstrations. He pleaded no contest and paid a fine, but then sued to prevent the enforcement of the law against him in the future.
This lawsuit, the lower courts found, was barred by U.S. Supreme Court precedent. That precedent prevents suits in federal court to overturn prior state court convictions where the person challenging the law has not satisfied federal statutory requirements, such as seeking a writ of habeas corpus.
Olivier is asking the Supreme Court to clarify that his lawsuit can proceed. This is because he is not challenging the prior decision but trying to prevent future enforcement of the law, which he argues is unconstitutional. He also makes an alternative argument that he could not have sought a writ of habeas corpus because he had never been in custody.
Other Cases with Religious Freedom Implications
Though not directly raising religious freedom claims, two other cases raise issues that could impact religious organizations and people of faith. They have also generated interest among religious groups that have weighed in with amicus briefs.
One involves an attempt by New York’s attorney general to obtain private records from a pregnancy resource center, a charity that provides assistance to pregnant women who might otherwise consider an abortion. The demand included donor names and contact information. This request appears to clearly conflict with U.S. Supreme Court precedent that protects the membership lists of the NAACP from public disclosure. (This decision was influenced by religious efforts to secure the protection of their right of association.) Religious groups have weighed in on this case, arguing that government mandates to disclose religious activities would infringe upon their First Amendment rights.
The other involves a Colorado law that prohibits counselors and therapists from sharing messages with clients that could be understood as encouraging them to change sexual orientation, gender identity, or related feelings or behaviors. This means that an adolescent who wants to get help from a professional to achieve congruity between religious beliefs about sex and sexuality with their actions would be unable to, because the state does not allow a message that such a change is possible or desirable. Here again, religious organizations have signaled support for the counselors challenging the law, noting that while they oppose any coercive treatments, Colorado’s statute discriminated against religious messages.
It appears likely that at the end of this session, religious freedom advocates will have a clearer picture of how that First Amendment right can be vindicated and, perhaps also expanded free speech and association protections that will benefit them and all Americans.
