We will hear argument first this morning in case 231197, Lander v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety.

Mr. Tripp.

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, it is undisputed that my client has alleged an assault that is just brazenly illegal.

He was at Respondent's mercy in federally funded custody when he handed

them a copy of controlling precedent holding that Raluppa protected his right to keep his hair

long. They threw it away, handcuffed him to a chair, and shaved him bald. It is the poster

child for a RLupa violation, and the law provides a damages remedy.

This is spending legislation, so I want to go right to that and make two points about clarity and constitutionality.

So first, on clarity, the whole point of this law is to restore pre-Smith rights and remedies.

Damages were available before Smith.

They're available under RFRA, and RELUPA uses identical

language. They're like twins separated at birth. They clearly mean the same thing. The individual

capacity action is especially clear. On the face of the statute, it expressly authorizes

suit against an official or any other person acting under color of state law.

That obviously means individual capacity. And then once you see there's an individual capacity

action, the rest of it falls into line because damage of the whole point of individual capacity

is to have damages. Damages are presumptively available against a non-sovereign. And without

damages, officials can literally

treat the law like garbage.

On constitutionality, it is undisputed.

Respondents admit they must comply with Raluppa within the scope of their work as officers

in a federally funded state prison.

...