The US Supreme Court made a new rule. Prison workers do not have to pay money if they break a person's religious rights.

美國最高法院制定了一項新規則。如果監獄職員侵犯了個人的宗教權利，不需要支付賠償金。

Damon Landor is a prisoner. He has a religion. In 2020, prison workers cut his hair. This was against his religion. He wanted the workers to pay him money.

Damon Landor 是一名囚犯。他有信仰的宗教。2020 年，監獄職員剪了他的頭髮，這違反了他的宗教信仰。因此，他要求職員向他支付賠償金。

Six judges said no. They said the law is like a contract. The contract is between the government and the state. The workers did not sign the contract. So, the workers do not pay.

六名法官表示不同意。他們認為法律就像一份合約，而該合約是政府與州政府之間的協議。職員並未簽署該合約，因此職員無需支付賠償金。

One judge, Justice Jackson, disagreed. She said this is bad. She thinks prisoners need a way to get help when workers are mean or wrong.

一名法官傑克森（Justice Jackson）則持有不同意見。她表示這樣做是不對的。她認為當職員表現惡劣或出錯時，囚犯需要有途徑尋求幫助。

The prison system can be in trouble, but the individual workers do not pay money.

監獄系統可能會面臨責任，但個別職員無需支付賠償金。

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。

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that individual prison officials cannot be sued for monetary damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), despite findings of religious liberty violations.

美國最高法院裁定，儘管發現有違反宗教自由的行為，但監獄職員個人不能在《宗教土地使用及制度化人員法》(RLUIPA) 下被起訴要求金錢賠償。

The judicial determination in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety centers on the legal recourse available to Damon Landor, a Rastafarian practitioner. In 2020, while incarcerated at the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center, Landor was forcibly restrained and his dreadlocks were shaved, an act that occurred despite his presentation of a prior appellate ruling protecting such religious practices. While the Court acknowledged the severity of the incident, the legal inquiry focused on whether RLUIPA permits personal-capacity lawsuits for financial compensation.

Landor 訴路易斯安那州矯正與公共安全部的司法裁定，核心在於拉斯塔法主義者 Damon Landor 可採取的法律追索權。2020 年，Landor 在 Raymond Laborde 矯正中心服刑期間被強行制伏並剃掉了他的髒盤髮（dreadlocks），儘管他當時已出示先前保護此類宗教習俗的上訴法院裁決，該事件依然發生。雖然法院承認該事件十分嚴重，但法律調查的重點在於 RLUIPA 是否允許以個人身分起訴以獲取財務補償。

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the 6-3 conservative majority, utilized a contract-based interpretation of the Spending Clause. The Court reasoned that because RLUIPA functions as a condition for states receiving federal funding, it constitutes a contractual agreement between the federal government and the state entity. Consequently, the majority held that individual employees, who are not direct parties to this funding agreement, cannot be held personally liable unless they explicitly consented to such liability. This distinction separates the current ruling from the 2020 Tanzin v. Tanvir decision, which permitted damages under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a different statutory framework.

由 6 比 3 保守派多數意見撰寫的 Neil Gorsuch 法官，採用了基於合約的「支出條款」解釋。法院認為，由於 RLUIPA 是州政府獲取聯邦資助的條件，因此它構成了聯邦政府與州實體之間的一項合約協議。因此，多數意見認為，並非該資助協議直接當事方的個別僱員，除非他們明確同意承擔責任，否則不能被追究個人責任。這一區分將本次裁決與 2020 年 Tanzin 訴 Tanvir 案分開，後者是在不同的法定框架《宗教自由恢復法》(RFRA) 下允許賠償。

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson characterized the majority's reasoning as a 'sleight of hand,' arguing that the application of a contract analogy undermines the legislative intent of Congress. The dissent posited that this precedent removes meaningful remedies for incarcerated individuals and may diminish the incentive for state officials to adhere to federal religious protections. Furthermore, legal analysts suggest this narrow interpretation of federal statutes could have broader institutional implications, potentially limiting the enforceability of other federal mandates, such as those pertaining to emergency medical care in restrictive jurisdictions.

在反對意見中，Ketanji Brown Jackson 法官將多數派的推理形容為「偷樑換柱」，認為套用合約類比會削弱國會的立法意圖。反對意見指出，這一先例剝奪了被監禁人士有效的救濟手段，並可能降低州政府官員遵守聯邦宗教保護法的動力。此外，法律分析師建議，這種對聯邦法令的狹義解釋可能會產生更廣泛的制度性影響，潛在限制其他聯邦指令的執行力，例如關於限制性管轄區內緊急醫療護理的指令。

The ruling affirms that while state prison systems may be held accountable under RLUIPA, individual officers remain immune from personal monetary liability for similar violations.

該裁決肯定了，雖然州監獄系統可能在 RLUIPA 下被追究責任，但個別職員對於類似違規行為依然享有個人金錢賠償豁免權。