The Supreme Court has barred a former Louisiana inmate from suing prison officials who cut his dreadlocks in violation of his Rastafari religious beliefs.
Does anyone actually understand what the ruling is arguing? It seems to be arguing that the individuals are not liable since they did not sign a contract.
Honesty it is horrifying that the supreme court is now a political tool. Justices should not have a political party affiliation
Ok I’m not a legal expert and I think this is an abhorrent thing. He should have not had his head shaved.
However the main point of the ruling is that he can’t sue prison in a federal court because at the time it happened it wasn’t technically a federal prison. Which is just a ruling on jurisdiction.
Does anyone actually understand what the ruling is arguing? It seems to be arguing that the individuals are not liable since they did not sign a contract.
Honesty it is horrifying that the supreme court is now a political tool. Justices should not have a political party affiliation
Ok I’m not a legal expert and I think this is an abhorrent thing. He should have not had his head shaved.
However the main point of the ruling is that he can’t sue prison in a federal court because at the time it happened it wasn’t technically a federal prison. Which is just a ruling on jurisdiction.
I believe he can still sue other ways.
You can sue in federal court if the act was breaking federal law. This is how most civil rights abuse cases are filed.