The United States Supreme Court has ruled that individual prison officials cannot be sued for money under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), even if they have violated a prisoner's religious freedom.

美國最高法院裁定，根據《宗教土地使用與制度化人員法》（RLUIPA），即便個別監獄官員違反了囚犯的宗教自由，也不能被起訴要求金錢賠償。

The case of Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety focused on Damon Landor, a Rastafarian. In 2020, while in prison, Landor was held down and his dreadlocks were shaved, despite a previous court ruling that protected his religious practice. Although the Court agreed that the incident was serious, the main legal question was whether RLUIPA allows prisoners to sue individual employees for financial compensation.

Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety 這一案件聚焦於一名拉斯塔法主義者 Damon Landor。2020年，Landor 在監獄中被壓制並被剃除髒卷髮，儘管先前已有法院裁定保護其宗教實踐。雖然法院同意該事件情節嚴重，但核心法律問題在於 RLUIPA 是否允許囚犯就金錢賠償起訴個別員工。

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, stating that RLUIPA acts like a contract between the federal government and the state. Because the law is a condition for states to receive federal funding, the Court argued that only the state entity is responsible. Consequently, individual employees cannot be held personally liable because they are not part of that funding agreement. This decision differs from a 2020 case involving the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which does allow for damages.

大法官 Neil Gorsuch 撰寫了多數意見書，指出 RLUIPA 就像是聯邦政府與州政府之間的一份合約。由於該法案是州政府獲取聯邦資助的條件，法院認為僅州政府實體需承擔責任。因此，個別員工無需承擔個人法律責任，因為他們並非該資助協議的一部分。此決定與 2020 年涉及《宗教自由恢復法》（RFRA）的案件不同，後者允許損害賠償。

However, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed with this reasoning. She argued that using a contract analogy ignores the original goal of Congress and removes important legal remedies for prisoners. Furthermore, she emphasized that this ruling might make prison officials less likely to follow federal religious protections. Legal experts suggest that this narrow interpretation could also limit how other federal laws, such as those regarding emergency medical care, are enforced.

然而，大法官 Ketanji Brown Jackson 不同意此推論。她認為使用合約類比忽略了國會的最初目標，並剝奪了囚犯重要的法律救濟手段。此外，她強調此裁決可能會降低監獄官員遵守聯邦宗教保護規範的可能性。法律專家建議，這種狹義解釋也可能限制其他聯邦法律（例如關於緊急醫療照護的法律）的執行方式。

In summary, the ruling confirms that while state prison systems can be held responsible under RLUIPA, individual officers are protected from paying personal damages for such violations.

總結來說，該裁定確認雖然州監獄系統在 RLUIPA 下需承擔責任，但個別官員無需就此類違規行為支付個人賠償。