WASHINGTON – There have been no shortage of religious groups seeking help from theSupreme Courtin recent years, includingthree caseslast term that involved the Catholic Church. But the religion at the center of a case set for after the summer is not nearly as well represented in the population - or in the courtroom. In fact, it appears to be the first time theSupreme Courtwill hear anappeal from a Rastafarian. Damon Landor said his religious rights were violated when his dreadlocks were forcibly shaved by Louisiana prison guards. More:Supreme Court to decide if prison officials can be sued over inmates' religious rights Landor had shown prison officials a copy of a court ruling that dreadlocks grown for religious reasons should be accommodated. But an intake guard threw the ruling in the trash and Landor was handcuffed to a chair while his knee-length locks were shaved off. The justices will decide whether Landor can sue the guards for compensation under theReligious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Landor – whose appeal was backed by more than 30 religious groups and the Justice Department − argues that monetary damages are often the only way to hold prison officials accountable when religious rights are violated. Legal experts on religion cases expect the court will side with the Rastafarian. That would be consistent not just with the high success rate of appeals the court agrees to hear from religious people,but also with the role smaller religious groups have played in the court's history. Most of the religious cases Richard Garnett teaches in his classes at the University of Notre Dame Law School involve smaller religious communities, including Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists. "The story of religious freedom in America has developed through cases involving members of minority religions," Garnett said. Other court watchers, however, say that was more true in the past than it is now. "That's kind of a legacy view," said Carl Esbeck, an expert on religious liberty at the University of Missouri School of Law. In fact, a2022 studyfound that; since 2005, the winning religion in most Supreme Court religious cases was a mainstream Christian organization. In the past, by contrast, pro-religion outcomes more frequently favored minority or marginal religious organizations, according to the analysis by Lee Epstein at Washington University in St. Louis and Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School. "The religion clauses of the First Amendment were once understood to provide modest but meaningful protection for non-mainstream religions from discrimination by governments that favored mainstream Christian organizations, practices, or values," they wrote. Similarly, traditionalist Christians – such as orthodox Catholics and Baptists – had been significantly less successful than other religious groups in getting accommodations from lower federal courts from 1986 to 1995, according to astudyby Michael Heise of Cornell Law School and Gregory Sisk of the University of St. Thomas School of Law. But from 2006 to 2015, their disadvantage "appeared to fade into statistical insignificance," they wrote in 2022. The Supreme Court, they said, "appears to be setting the stage for a more equitable and expansive protection of religious liberty." Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, agrees that the court has taken an expansive view of religious liberty protections. But he says it hasn't always been equitable. In 2018, the courtsaidColorado had shown "religious hostility" to a baker who didn't want to make a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple. More:How a Supreme Court case about a gay couple's wedding cake got caught up in Israeli judicial reform But that same month, Mach said, the courtupheldPresident Donald Trump's travel ban "even in the face of Trump's repeated unambiguous statements condemning Islam and Muslims." More broadly, he said, the court's "general hostility to the separation of church and state" erodes protections for minority groups promised by the First Amendment's prohibition against the government favoring a specific religion or favoring religion in general. "Built into that structure is necessarily a protection against the imposition by the majority of its favored religious doctrine," he said. In February, President Donald Trump signed anexecutive orderaimed at "Eradicating anti-Christian Bias" and calling on agencies to eliminate the "anti-Christian weaponization of government." The administration cited that order when telling federal employees in aJuly 28 memothey may discuss and promote their religious beliefs in the workplace. More:Supreme Court blocks Catholic charter school in big setback for religion advocates In June, the Supreme Court built upon a 1972 ruling for the Amish as itaffirmedthe religious rights of parents to remove their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being used. When deciding more than 50 years ago that Amish parents did not have to keep their children in school until age 16 as Wisconsin required, the court said those parents had an argument "that probably few other religious groups or sects could make." But Justice Samuel Alito left no doubt about the broader significance ofWisconsin v. Yoderin the 6-3opinionhe authored in June that sided with parents from a variety of religious backgrounds − including Roman Catholic but also Muslim, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and other faiths − who objected to the LGBTQ+ storybooks used in Maryland school district. "Yoder is an important precedent of this Court, and it cannot be breezily dismissed as a special exception granted to one particular religious minority," Alito wrote. More:Supreme Court sides with Maryland parents who want to avoid LGBTQ+ books in public schools In a2020 speechto the conservative Federalist Society, Alito had warned that "religious liberty is in danger of becoming a second-class right." He listed examples of cases he'd judged about religious minorities, including the rights of Muslim police officers to have beards, of a Jewish prisoner to organize a Torah study group and whether a Native American could keep a bear for religious services. The baker who didn't want to make a cake for a same-sex wedding and Catholic nuns who objected to insurance coverage for contraceptives "deserve no less protection," Alito said about more recent cases. More:Supreme Court sides with Catholic Charities in case about tax exemptions and religion Cornell Law School ProfessorNelson Tebbesaid more of the claims about religious freedom started to come from mainstream majority Christian groups as political polarization increased and as the gay rights movement picked up speed. "Suddenly, civil libertarian groups who had been on the side of minority religions…started to realize that civil rights laws could be vulnerable to religious attacks by conservative Christians and they started to get worried," Tebbe said. As the court has shifted its approach, he said, the justices have both granted exemptions from regulations that burden religion as well as said government must treat religious groups no differently than secular organizations when providing public benefits − such as school vouchers. "While both of those could be seen as understandable on their own terms, when you put them together, there's a clear pattern of preference for religious groups," he said. "It's a pretty dramatic moment in constitutional law in this area." Garnett, the religious freedom expert at the University of Notre Dame Law School, said the court's decisions are a reflection of the ongoing debate over how much accommodation should be given in a country with diverse religious views. "So the fact that those cases are coming up isn't because the court sort of shifted to protecting majority groups," he said. "It's because events on the ground shifted. And the nature of the controversies that are served up are different." This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:Rastafarian joins long history of marginal religious groups at Supreme Court
