The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a Louisiana prisoner cannot bring a civil lawsuit against the guards who forcibly shaved his dreadlocks, a practice central to his Rastafarian religious beliefs. The decision reversed a lower court ruling that had allowed the suit to proceed, finding that the guards were shielded from personal liability under existing legal standards.

The plaintiff, identified in court documents as Landor, argued that the forced removal of his dreadlocks violated his First Amendment right to religious exercise. Rastafarians consider dreadlocks a sacred expression of their faith, rooted in biblical teachings. Landor sought damages from the individual prison guards who carried out the act.

The Court's majority held that the legal framework governing such suits did not permit the claim to proceed against the officers personally. The ruling does not directly address whether the underlying act violated Landor's religious rights, but rather forecloses the particular legal avenue he pursued for accountability.

The decision adds to a line of cases that have made it increasingly difficult for prisoners and others to sue government officials for constitutional violations. Critics of the ruling argue it leaves incarcerated individuals with few practical remedies when their religious rights are infringed. Supporters of the outcome contend that limiting personal liability for prison staff is necessary to allow guards to perform their duties without fear of excessive litigation.

The case had drawn amicus briefs and widespread attention from religious liberty advocates across ideological lines, given that it implicated both the rights of a minority religious group and the scope of inmate access to federal courts.