A devout Rastafarian whose dreadlocks had taken two decades to grow says his faith and dignity were violated after prison guards forcibly shaved his head while he was incarcerated in Louisiana, a case that has reignited debate over religious freedom behind bars despite ending in defeat at the United States Supreme Court.

The case centres on Damon Landor, a Rastafarian whose religious beliefs require him to keep his hair uncut. His locks had grown for more than 20 years, stretching nearly to his knees, before prison officers restrained him in a chair and shaved his head during a 2020 incarceration.

According to court records, Landor repeatedly informed prison officials that his dreadlocks were a sacred expression of his faith. He even presented officers with a copy of a 2017 federal appeals court ruling that had declared Louisiana’s policy of forcibly cutting Rastafarian prisoners’ hair unlawful under federal religious protections.

Instead of honouring the ruling, one prison guard allegedly threw the court document into the trash before Landor was handcuffed, held down and shaved.

For followers of the Rastafari faith, dreadlocks are not merely a hairstyle but a deeply held religious commitment symbolising a covenant with God, identity and spiritual devotion. Cutting them against a believer’s will is regarded as a profound violation of religious belief.

“When I was strapped down and shaved, it felt like I was raped,” Landor previously said, describing the emotional and spiritual trauma he suffered following the incident.

Landor later sued the prison officers, arguing they had violated his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal law designed to protect the religious freedoms of prisoners and other institutionalised people.

However, in a 6-3 ruling delivered on Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed his claim, finding that while the law protects religious rights, it does not allow inmates to seek monetary damages from individual prison officers because they never consented to such liability under the statute.

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said the prison officials could not be personally sued under the law.

The court’s three liberal justices dissented, warning that the decision effectively leaves prisoners without meaningful remedies when their religious rights are violated.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the ruling means prisoners whose religious freedoms are blatantly infringed “will often be left remediless,” arguing it removes an important deterrent against future abuses by prison officials.

Although the ruling bars Landor from pursuing damages against the guards, it does not endorse the actions taken against him. Even Louisiana officials acknowledged that the alleged conduct was unacceptable, saying steps have since been taken to prevent similar incidents from recurring.