(S.Ct. June 23, 2026)

This case presents the issue of whether individual state employees can be held liable for damages if they violate prisoners’ religious rights protected by RLUIPA (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U. S. C. §§2000cc–1(a), et seq). The Court held that they cannot.

The Court reasoned that RLUIPA was enacted pursuant to Congress’s authority under the spending clause of the Constitution. In other words, Congress can condition its provision of money to the states on the state’s agreement to waive sovereign immunity. Several years ago, the Supreme Court held in Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277 (2011) that RLUIPA was not specific enough regarding the availability of damages to infer that states waived their sovereign immunity by accepting federal funds. Thus, RLUIPA provides only for injunctive relief against states, not a damage award.

Landor asked the next logical question: even if states are not liable for damages, individual state officials could be, as they do not enjoy sovereign immunity, and thus there is nothing for them to waive.

The Court rejected this argument, holding that the same rule which applies to states applies to individual officials: unless they specifically agree to be liable for damages, they cannot be held liable.

This has been the rule in the 7th Circuit for many years (see, for example, Nelson v. Miller, 570 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2009), but is now firmly established by the Supreme Court.