Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
The court ruled that the guards were likely in the wrong, but that the man had to sue them in state court because the prison had never received federal funding and thus federal jurisdiction and the particular federal law allowing lawsuits didn't apply.
The court ruled that the guards were likely in the wrong
That's just empty language, not any kind of ruling with legal force behind it
the man had to sue them in state court because the prison had never received federal funding
TIL the first amendment has no effect if you're transferred to the wrong state prison
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 fifth US 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 in the case.
Landor was then handcuffed to a chair, held down and shaved.
So the majority opinion is that a state agency can willfully violate a federal law but federal judges can't do anything about it. If that sounds stupid and racist to you that's because it is.
It's worse when you look at the history of that federal law, section 1983.
The court keeps gutting it because it was a law made to help protect former slaves from southern racists in positions of power.
Thanks for clearing that up. 😊
The court is still participating in a miscarriage if justice, because the law this man sued under was meant for situations exactly like this. Section 1983 was added to the federal code just after the civil war, and is how you sue the government over violated rights.
The court is abdicating their power here, because of racism and authoritarianism.
I see that, as well. I hope this man gets the justice he deserves.
They only care about one religion’s “rights” and they’ve made that pretty clear.
Except buddy didn't sue at the state level first. The SC is supposed to be the final appeal.
Somehow this won't matter for trump lawsuits
Also, there is no state law prohibiting this in Louisiana. There's a federal law that federal courts have previously ruled prohibits this exact thing, but the Supreme Court just ruled that there's no way for individuals to enforce it.
Jackson filed the dissenting opinion, which was joined by fellow liberal justices.
She wrote that prisoners “like Landor who suffer violations of their religious freedom in state prisons – no matter how blatant – will often be left remediless. 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.”
That's not a figure of speech, btw, he literally handed them a copy of a court ruling telling them this was illegal
The Trump administration backed Landor, urging the supreme court to revive the case.
Not surprising that they'd want the court to rule in favor of suing individuals over violating religious freedom, but I am surprised they lost.
The article does not specify who can be held legally responsible for this violation or if the prison itself was already held responsible.
The article does not specify who can be held legally responsible for this violation or if the prison itself was already held responsible.
That's because the answer is now "nobody."
Per the ABC article linked from this article:
"We support the principles behind protections of religious freedom and the laws that have been enacted both by Congress and our state," Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill told ABC News. "But in a prison setting, this becomes a lot more complicated. It could crush the entire state budget if we were subjected to damages in a situation like this."
What a hellscape. "We can't be held accountable for breaking the law, it'd be too expensive."