Identical, Not Fraternal Twins: RLUIPA, RFRA, and Damages

*J.D., University of Virginia School of Law, expected 2026. I am very grateful to Professor Micah Schwartzman, whose class inspired this Note. I would also like to thank Lance Ledet, Philip Hedden, Nicole Emory, and the members of the Virginia Law Review, whose thoughtful feedback was invaluable in bringing this piece to publication. Finally, I would like to thank my family, without whom my writing would have a lot more commas and make a lot less sense.Show More

The federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) and Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) are commonly labeled “twin” or “sister” statutes. Both reinstall a strict scrutiny regime for religious accommodations, and they use identical remedial language to do so, providing for “appropriate relief against a government.” In 2020’s Tanzin v. Tanvir, the Supreme Court interpreted RFRA’s remedial provision to allow for personal capacity damages suits against government officials. By that time, however, ten federal courts of appeals had reached the opposite conclusion regarding that same remedial text within RLUIPA. Post-Tanzin, no circuit has changed course. Instead, they hold fast to two objections grounded in RLUIPA’s Spending Clause underpinnings: (1) RLUIPA has not provided “clear notice” of potential liability, which is required for a party to be liable for damages; and (2) because government officials are non-recipients of federal funds, they cannot be held personally liable.

This Note argues that these circuits have misapplied Spending Clause jurisprudence. Background presumptions, text, context, and precedent all make clear that damages suits against individuals are on the table. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly held funding non-recipients monetarily liable for violation of Spending Clause statutes, creating a line of precedent at odds with the circuits’ divined rule. This Note also illustrates the injustice that these erroneous damages bars have worked upon the one million-plus incarcerated persons in state and local institutions whose rights under RLUIPA often lack a remedy.

Introduction

In his civil complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, Damon Landor alleged that Louisiana prison officials at the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center (“RLCC”) forcibly shaved his head upon transfer to the facility.¹ 1.Complaint & Jury Demand ¶ 37, Landor v. La. Dep’t of Corr. & Pub. Safety, No. 21-cv-00733, 2022 WL 4593085 (M.D. La. Sept. 29, 2022), aff’d, 82 F.4th 337 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. granted,145 S. Ct. 2814 (2025).Show More Landor, a devout Rastafarian, had been growing his dreadlocks for twenty years in compliance with the Nazarite vow not to cut one’s hair.² 2.Id.¶¶ 21–24.Show More Precedent in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit squarely forbade the officials’ conduct as a violation of Landor’s rights under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”).³ 3.See Ware v. La. Dep’t of Corr., 866 F.3d 263, 274 (5th Cir. 2017) (holding that a Louisiana Department of Corrections grooming policy, which prohibited inmates from having dreadlocks, was an unjustified substantial burden on Rastafarian inmates’ faith under RLUIPA).Show More Landor, in an abundance of caution, had brought with him to RLCC a physical copy of the opinion that established Rastafarian incarcerated persons’ right to grow their hair.⁴ 4.Complaint & Jury Demand, supra note 1, ¶ 33.Show More RLCC’s intake officer, unpersuaded by binding federal law, tossed the opinion in the garbage.⁵ 5.Id ¶ 34.Show More The warden arrived and demanded the religious documentation provided by Landor’s sentencing judge.⁶ 6.Id.¶¶ 34–35.Show More Landor offered to request the documents from his attorney.⁷ 7.Id.¶ 36.Show More “Too late for that,” the warden responded, before having Landor cuffed to a chair.⁸ 8.Id ¶ 37.Show More

Despite its egregious facts, Landor’s complaint was summarily dismissed by the district court judge.⁹ 9.Landor v. La. Dep’t of Corr. & Pub. Safety, No. 21-cv-00733, 2022 WL 4593085, at *3 (M.D. La. Sept. 29, 2022).Show More A Fifth Circuit panel reviewing the case on appeal “emphatically condemn[ed]” Landor’s treatment.¹⁰ 10.Landor v. La. Dep’t of Corr. & Pub. Safety, 82 F.4th 337, 345 (5th Cir. 2023).Show More Nevertheless, the panel unanimously affirmed the dismissal.¹¹ 11.Id.Show More While a prima facie violation of RLUIPA had been alleged, no remedy was available to redress the injury suffered. Injunctive and declaratory relief were off the table since Landor was no longer incarcerated.¹² 12.See Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001) (concluding that an incarcerated individual’s suit for equitable relief under RLUIPA is mooted once they leave the injurious facility).Show More The Supreme Court has held that RLUIPA claims against state officials in their official capacity—which are tantamount to claims against the state itself—are barred by state sovereign immunity.¹³ 13.See Sossamon v. Texas (Sossamon II), 563 U.S. 277, 282, 293 (2011).Show More And Fifth Circuit precedent holds that monetary damages are unavailable under RLUIPA for suits against state officials in their individual capacity.¹⁴ 14.Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Texas (Sossamon I), 560 F.3d 316, 331 (5th Cir. 2009), aff’d on other grounds sub nom. Sossamon II, 563 U.S. 277. Suits against an officer in their individual or “personal” capacity are lawsuits that “can be executed only against the official’s personal assets” and not the governmental entity for which they work. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985).Show More

Sympathy aside, the federal courts left Landor empty-handed. This Note rejects that result as his proper judicial fate. Particularly, it argues that damages should be available in suits against officers in their individual capacity under RLUIPA. The present answer, across all federal circuits to have addressed the question, is that they are not.¹⁵ 15.See, e.g., Rendelman v. Rouse, 569 F.3d 182, 189 (4th Cir. 2009); Stewart v. Beach, 701 F.3d 1322, 1335 (10th Cir. 2012); Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255, 1275 (11th Cir. 2007).Show More But this unanimity is deceiving. Most courts have not readdressed the question since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its 2020 decision in Tanzin v. Tanvir, which established that individual capacity suits for damages are available under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”).¹⁶ 16.141 S. Ct. 486, 493 (2020).Show More RFRA and RLUIPA are commonly labeled “twin” or “sister” statutes.¹⁷ 17.See, e.g., Ramirez v. Collier, 142 S. Ct. 1264, 1277 (2022) (“sister”); Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter & Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 140 S. Ct. 2367, 2396 n.13 (2020) (Alito, J., concurring) (“twin”).Show More Both were enacted as part of Congress’s efforts to legislatively abrogate the Supreme Court’s abandonment of the strict scrutiny standard for violations of the Free Exercise Clause in Employment Division v. Smith.¹⁸ 18.See Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352, 356–57 (2015).Show More They also share functionally identical remedial provisions, allowing for injured parties to seek “appropriate relief against a government.”¹⁹ 19.42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb-1(c), 2000cc-2(a).Show More

Despite this congruity and the common practice of using case law interpreting the text of one of these “twin” statute to elucidate the other’s meaning, the scope of RLUIPA’s remedies remains unchanged.²⁰ 20.See infra Section I.B.Show More The Fifth Circuit, one of the few courts of appeals to revisit the question of individual capacity damages suits following Tanzin, reaffirmed their unavailability under RLUIPA in Landor’s case.²¹ 21.Landor v. La. Dep’t of Corr. & Pub. Safety, 82 F.4th 337, 345 (5th Cir. 2023).Show More The panel focused, as other circuits have, on the fact that RLUIPA, unlike RFRA, is Spending Clause legislation.²² 22.See id. at 344 (explaining that Tanzin’s holding does not reach RLUIPA because “it addresses a different law that was enacted under a separate Congressional power”); see also Tripathy v. McKoy, 103 F.4th 106, 114 (2d Cir. 2024) (reaffirming a narrower interpretation of RFRA’s remedial scheme “for the simple reason that RFRA and RLUIPA were enacted pursuant to different constitutional provisions”).Show More As the panel explained, there are unique barriers to the imposition of liability under statutes enacted through Congress’s spending power—barriers that RLUIPA does not overcome in the context of individual officer damages suits.²³ 23.See Landor, 82 F.4that 341 (“Spending Clause legislation ‘operates like a contract,’ so ‘only the grant recipient—the state—may be liable for its violation.’” (quoting Sossamon I, 560 F.3d 316, 328 (5th Cir. 2009))).Show More However, six judges dissented from the denial of a rehearing en banc, finding the Spending Clause arguments unconvincing.²⁴ 24.See Landor v. La. Dep’t of Corr. & Pub. Safety, 93 F.4th 259, 265 (5th Cir. 2024) (Oldham, J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc).Show More Nine other judges concurred in the denial, asserting that only the Supreme Court could resolve the intractable friction between prior precedent and Tanzin.²⁵ 25.See id. at 261 (Clement, J., concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc) (“[T]hreading the needle between Sossamon II and Tanzin is a task best reserved for the court that wrote those opinions.”).Show More As Damon Landor’s case sits pending on the Supreme Court’s docket and other circuits grapple with Tanzin’s upshot,²⁶ 26.See, e.g., Fuqua v. Raak, 120 F.4th 1346, 1360 (9th Cir. 2024) (acknowledging that Tanzin indicates that “appropriate relief” should carry the same meaning across RFRA and RLUIPA, but concluding that the court remains bound by pre-Tanzin circuit precedent).Show More the question is ripe and underexplored.

This Note proceeds in four Parts. Part I examines the establishment and demise of the strict scrutiny standard of review for claims under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. Part I also analyzes the enactment of RFRA and RLUIPA in response to Smith, the case that circumscribed the application of strict scrutiny review to free exercise claims, as well as the prevailing judicial interpretations of these statutes’ remedial schemes. Parts II and III separately address each of the two Spending Clause rationales for the unavailability of damages against individual state and local officials under RLUIPA: (1) that RLUIPA does not provide the requisite “clear notice” to individual officers of their potential liability for damages; and (2) that individual officials are not themselves recipients of federal funds and thus cannot be held personally liable for violating RLUIPA’s terms. Parts II and III challenge these conclusions. Specifically, these Parts conclude that “clear notice” has been provided and non-recipients of federal funds can be held liable for violations of the conditions of spending power legislation, so damages should be available against individual officers under RLUIPA. Finally, Part IV discusses the real-world implications of the issues addressed in this Note. For the over 1.5 million individuals currently incarcerated in federally funded state prisons and local jails, the Free Exercise Clause permits almost across-the-board denial of religious accommodations. And RLUIPA currently extends a right to religious accommodations but often no remedy.

1.  Complaint & Jury Demand ¶ 37, Landor v. La. Dep’t of Corr. & Pub. Safety, No. 21-cv-00733, 2022 WL 4593085 (M.D. La. Sept. 29, 2022), aff’d, 82 F.4th 337 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. granted, 145 S. Ct. 2814 (2025). ↑
2.  Id. ¶¶ 21–24. ↑
3.  See Ware v. La. Dep’t of Corr., 866 F.3d 263, 274 (5th Cir. 2017) (holding that a Louisiana Department of Corrections grooming policy, which prohibited inmates from having dreadlocks, was an unjustified substantial burden on Rastafarian inmates’ faith under RLUIPA). ↑
4.  Complaint & Jury Demand, supra note 1, ¶ 33. ↑
5.  Id ¶ 34. ↑
6.  Id. ¶¶ 34–35. ↑
7.  Id. ¶ 36. ↑
8.  Id ¶ 37. ↑
9.  Landor v. La. Dep’t of Corr. & Pub. Safety, No. 21-cv-00733, 2022 WL 4593085, at *3 (M.D. La. Sept. 29, 2022). ↑
10.  Landor v. La. Dep’t of Corr. & Pub. Safety, 82 F.4th 337, 345 (5th Cir. 2023). ↑
11.  Id. ↑
12.  See Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001) (concluding that an incarcerated individual’s suit for equitable relief under RLUIPA is mooted once they leave the injurious facility). ↑
13.  See Sossamon v. Texas (Sossamon II), 563 U.S. 277, 282, 293 (2011). ↑
14.  Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Texas (Sossamon I), 560 F.3d 316, 331 (5th Cir. 2009), aff’d on other grounds sub nom. Sossamon II, 563 U.S. 277. Suits against an officer in their individual or “personal” capacity are lawsuits that “can be executed only against the official’s personal assets” and not the governmental entity for which they work. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985). ↑
15.  See, e.g., Rendelman v. Rouse, 569 F.3d 182, 189 (4th Cir. 2009); Stewart v. Beach, 701 F.3d 1322, 1335 (10th Cir. 2012); Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255, 1275 (11th Cir. 2007). ↑
16.  141 S. Ct. 486, 493 (2020). ↑
17.  See, e.g., Ramirez v. Collier, 142 S. Ct. 1264, 1277 (2022) (“sister”); Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter & Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 140 S. Ct. 2367, 2396 n.13 (2020) (Alito, J., concurring) (“twin”). ↑
18.  See Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352, 356–57 (2015). ↑
19.  42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb-1(c), 2000cc-2(a). ↑
20.  See infra Section I.B. ↑
21.  Landor v. La. Dep’t of Corr. & Pub. Safety, 82 F.4th 337, 345 (5th Cir. 2023). ↑
22.  See id. at 344 (explaining that Tanzin’s holding does not reach RLUIPA because “it addresses a different law that was enacted under a separate Congressional power”); see also Tripathy v. McKoy, 103 F.4th 106, 114 (2d Cir. 2024) (reaffirming a narrower interpretation of RFRA’s remedial scheme “for the simple reason that RFRA and RLUIPA were enacted pursuant to different constitutional provisions”). ↑
23.  See Landor, 82 F.4th at 341 (“Spending Clause legislation ‘operates like a contract,’ so ‘only the grant recipient—the state—may be liable for its violation.’” (quoting Sossamon I, 560 F.3d 316, 328 (5th Cir. 2009))). ↑
24.  See Landor v. La. Dep’t of Corr. & Pub. Safety, 93 F.4th 259, 265 (5th Cir. 2024) (Oldham, J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc). ↑
25.  See id. at 261 (Clement, J., concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc) (“[T]hreading the needle between Sossamon II and Tanzin is a task best reserved for the court that wrote those opinions.”). ↑

26.  See, e.g., Fuqua v. Raak, 120 F.4th 1346, 1360 (9th Cir. 2024) (acknowledging that Tanzin indicates that “appropriate relief” should carry the same meaning across RFRA and RLUIPA, but concluding that the court remains bound by pre-Tanzin circuit precedent). ↑