Public opinion is largely skeptical and critical of the Supreme Court's directives on premature prisoner release. Concerns about legal loopholes and lack of oversight leading to potential abuses of power dominate the conversation. Many express frustration with the justice system, particularly regarding high-profile criminals and politicians, emphasizing the need for reforms to prevent misuse of such policies.

Supreme Court

Government

Prison System

All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. **FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.**

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/law) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

This case involves a legal dispute over whether individuals can seek monetary damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal law that protects the religious rights of people in institutions like prisons. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a lower court’s decision denying compensation to Damon Landor, a Rastafarian inmate whose dreadlocks were forcibly cut in violation of his religious beliefs. The outcome will clarify the extent to which courts can award damages for religious rights violations under RLUIPA.

thebelsnickle1991

Dreadlocks are a legitimate religious belief/pracfice in Rastafari.  Police in Jamaica would harass the original practitioners there by doing the same thing - cutting them off.

ReggaeForPresident

I would be surprised if this case didn’t result in a unanimous reversal of the Fifth Circuit.

The case involves the [Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000cc-1) (RLUIPA), which provides that the government cannot substantially burden the religious practice of federal inmates unless the burden “is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest,” even if that burden is imposed by a generally-applicable rule. This is essentially the old [*Sherbert* test](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherbert_v._Verner) that was overturned by [*Employment Division v. Smith*](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith), and allows for religious freedom claims by virtue of a statutory right, rather than the Free Exercise Clause.

The relevant text is virtually identical to the better-known [Religious Freedom Restoration Act](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000bb-1) (RFRA), which also reasserts the old *Sherbert* test for religious practice in general, using the same language. Most importantly, RFRA also provides that:

&gt; A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

The RLUIPA contains a [substantively identical provision](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000cc-2); that provision likewise provides that an inmate whose religious practice is so burdened may “assert a violation…as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding obtain appropriate relief against a government.”

In 2020’s [*Tanzin v. Tanvir*](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-71_qol1.pdf), the Supreme Court interpreted this language in RFRA to unanimously hold (8-0, with Barrett not participating because she joined the Court too late) that RFRA does allow for money damages against government officials for violations of RFRA.

The Fifth Circuit Opinion claimed that its existing precedent (that RLUIPA doesn’t allow claims for money damages) wasn’t abrogated by *Tanzin*. I think that’s…technically maybe true, in the least persuasive way possible. The existing Fifth Circuit precedent was probably still binding on the District Court (under vertical *stare decisis*, lower courts are heavily discouraged from disobeying existing precedent on the assumption that it will be overturned), but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is just begging to be reversed by refusing to alter its existing RLUIPA precedent, given that the Supreme Court has already reached the opposite conclusion when interpreting a functionally identical statute.

NoobSalad41

Since the law was passed, the government has conducted dozens of investigations and either brought or supported lawsuits against jails and prisons.  

Most claims are raised by people practicing a religion other than Christianity, including Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and Native Americans.

Nearly 30% of cases alleging violations in the first five years after the law took effect were brought by Muslims, according to the Tayba Foundation, which supports incarcerated Muslims.

Fluffy-Load1810

&gt; He was holding a copy of a court ruling that made it clear that practicing Rastafarians should be given a religious accommodation allowing them to keep their dreadlocks.

UntimelyXenomorph

This guy is fucked, assuming he doesn't pass the paper bag test. If he does, he's still fucked, but 5-4 rather than 6-3.

knivesofsmoothness

Fundamentally, you're asking about is how the law works when the rule of law has already been abandoned. The answer is "who knows". What you're asking about is wildly illegal and unconstitutional, but if the entire government decides it doesn't care, then the law and the Constitution are already dead, so what happens next is fundamentally outside the realm of what is or isn't allowed because at that point, there are no rules anymore.

internetboyfriend666

So the legal answer is no, the technical answer is yes.

The government imprisoning people because it doesn’t like their views would unquestionably be a violation of the Constitution—specifically the First Amendment. That said, we have locked people up legally on account of their ethnicity before (e.g., Japanese internment camps in WWII and SCOTUS held it Constitutional). 

But your specific question seems to be asking what if the entire federal government is complicit in imprisoning people just for disagreeing with their views (i.e., political prisoners). Ultimately the answer is the government possesses the technical ability to carry out such imprisonments and the only thing stopping them is the collective belief in the rule of law. To be clear, that has always been the only thing stopping that kind of action—it isn’t a new thing. Democratic and Republican forms of government rely upon people agreeing that the rule of law applies and adhering to that and then pushing back when any specific person or group seeks to break that rule of law.

If that were to happen and, hypothetically the federal government collectively agreed to set aside the Constitution and imprison people purely because of their political views, the legal solution is voting new elected officials into office. Assuming that is made impossible due to imprisonments or other methods, there remains no “legal” remedy.

That being said, our founders believed in certain unalienable rights, among those—and just to be clear, I am not advocating for this course of action or arguing it is necessary or correct (and to pursue it would arguably be, by definition, treason)—was a “right to revolution”: 

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

-The Declaration of Independence.

EntertainmentAny1630

So, the fall of democracy and the rise of a dictatorship can often lead to what one would consider violations of civil liberties and sometimes violence results. Whether it’s enough to stop what is going on is another question. In the United States we have a representative democracy. If the Congress allows it by not impeaching, then the country got what it voted for. 

If the President treats being impeached as just another advisory opinion he can ignore because of presidential immunity, and the army goes along with him, well we are back to that’s what happens when governments are destroyed. Which is basically what is behind the President-a bunch of people who want to destroy the government and profit from it.

DavidScubadiver

They can do whatever they want. No one will stop them. “He wouldn’t do THAT.” “Well he said he was going to do that.” “But he DEFINITELY wouldn’t do THAT!” “But he told us he’d do it because it’s going to make us great again.” And so on and so on

Historical-Ad3760

as long as habeas corpus isn't suspended, little chance.

sheawrites

What you’re asking is what happens when those in power refuse to comply with the law. I refer you to the top comment on this post. 

Ultimately the answer is who knows. Philosophically it seems that when the existing rule of law is discarded and those in power maintain power through force or threat of force, we in up in a lord of the flies situation where, in the end, might makes right.

All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. **FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE WILL RESULT IN REMOVAL.**

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/law) if you have any questions or concerns.*

The hearing in the Garcia case today should be interesting.

*Edit [Anna Bower is live blogging it on Bluesky](https://bsky.app/profile/annabower.bsky.social/post/3lmuud264cc2o).

supes1

The constitutional crisis was here as soon as his impeachment for an insurrection failed.  We’ve just been getting deeper into it since.

Gogs85

Throw the lawyers in jail, every single doj one that appears in front of judges. Stop playing games it's time to take action. All fines are going to do us just prolong this and give them something to appeal

ejre5

As a pasty white, cisgendered, heteronormative combat veteran who retired from the US Army and lives in south Texas, I am --terrified-- of what this means, and am ready to start carrying my firearms with me wherever I go. I won't win, but I'll damn sure go down with a fight.

xixoxixa

Uhmmmm….Do we all not already understand that this administration is not going to follow the rule of law? I mean, that’s where we’re at right? They’ve already started ignoring the courts. They ignored the Supreme Court, didn’t they? 

I think it’s time maybe to also accept that what’s going on here is far more sinister than too many people seem unaware of? Their plan is literally written down in black and white. 

This is a hostile government takeover.

TheGR8Dantini

[deleted]

We are in a new republic. That's just what this is. We were America. I don't know what we are now but it isn't America for the moment. Until people in power come to their senses.

brickyardjimmy

So, basically, another day, another way to show us how hopeless we are and that 47F is untouchable.

SqnLdrHarvey

I’m willing to lead the NJ branch of the revolution .

RepresentativeNo3365

Well, it's not like anyone could have seen this coming from a few trillion light years away. Um, wait...

IfIKnewThen

So I guess now the Supreme Court will just have to suffer from having a taco truck, a churro truck, and a burrito truck right in front of their houses as well as hairdressers on standby considering this administration’s well documented competence at finding foreign terrorists.

JessicaDAndy

Hey SCOTUS, if you're listening. Grab this guy by his scrotum and get rid of him!

Pickle-Rick-C-137

There’s really something off with republicans if they can stomach the lunacy of this administration.

njlandlord0001

Always asks, "What's in it for me?"

Sometimes asks, "Is this legal?"

Never asks, "Is this moral?"

AnotherMisanthrope

1nGirum1musNocte

The real terrorists are the ones trying to intimidate judges and politicians to make them scared to do their jobs

Pineapple_Gamer123

Is it weird that I can't tell satire from the truth with this administration? What a complete and utter clown car they are.

-Pwnan-

So will all the J-6ers be given houses near the SCOTUS justice’s homes? Alito and Thomas will be pleased as punch to have some fellow “patriots” near them.

Rambo_Baby

Considering his own definition of "terrorist", this amounts to precisely fuck all.

JDotDDot

Surely there are already republicans in their neighborhood

Relaxmf2022

LifeofRiley72

So he's threatening the scotus judges?  That never goes well.

rygelicus

Can we FUCKING ARREST HIM NOW???? 
Making terrorist threats against judges qualifies as a serious federal offense and a threat to national security. 
Congress?? Anyone???
🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗

WeirdcoolWilson

more stochastic terrorism.  if any other world leader were to suggest such an action when any other president than Trump were in office in America the outrage against that country would be heard around the world.  

BUT this Regime is sponsored by and serving the interests of several other terrorist Regimes around the world now so no shock, no surprise.

Long-Trash

Trump administration is lazy and unserious.

37Philly

BossParticular3383

Actually I would support doing this to Clarence

__phil1001__

I used to consider myself a staunch existentialist, but the recent state of the world being what it's been I've really started considering the merits of absurdism. 

Reject reality. Embrace delirium.

Tiny_Friendship_1666

It’s embarrassing, that he’s a world leader when he should be a prisoner.

Capable-Shift6128

Which "terrorists" is he going to release by which SCOTUS justice's homes? Does Thomas get the hair stylist who was fleeing persecution for being gay in Venezuela? Is Alito getting the guy who led anti-genocide protests at his college? Is Roberts getting the guy whose only "act of terrorism" was getting a Real Madrid tattoo?

unitedshoes

It's interesting how he can threaten people with great bodily harm, yet nothing happens to him.  That whole immunity thing is something the SC should have thought about a little more carefully, I think.

CriticalInside8272

Wasn't there a huge outcry not too long ago where Republicans were threatening to arrest anyone that dared even suggest disturbing a SCOTUS justice's home.   They were rushing to make new laws and screaming people should be arrested merely for "mild disapproval" of personally naming justices by other politicians.  

Funny how Judges that cross Orange Man are now "fair game" to all republicans... particularly those in Congress who attack them publicly.  

mabhatter

In all fairness, he considers Juan that picks apples down at the orchard to be a terrorist, so this isn't as bad as it might sound.

“Release” them as if they’re some kind of wild animal that’s going to set up an encampment wherever they’re dropped and murder the first thing they see lol.

AngryFace4

Can someone walk me through the thought process, here? Why would a terrorist do the bidding of the president?

NY_Knux

So who would the US Marshals, currently protecting those homes, follow? SCOTUS or the POTUS?

hamsterfolly

After the immunity opinion was given, I sent anonymous letters to a number of the justices. These letters said that they failed the constitution and they better hope he doesn't win again, because if he did he would come for them.

I am sure they laughed and threw the letters away. Here we are, Trump is planning to come for them. I bet they are worried now.

When the government made their argument of, "if he is given immunity that means Biden can just get seal team 6 to take him out " that wasn't personal enough, to the justices that was too distant a threat. The example should have been, "if the president is given immunity, nothing stops him from getting seal teams to take all of you and your families out and removing an entire branch of the government." Had that argument been made, SCOTUS would have likely voted differently.

PurpleBicorn

3to5arebest

Aren't Maga terrorizing the judges already?

Apprehensive_Map64

I really wish he would follow through with this dumb shit

daze23

This liberal wants due process for everyone. Screw Mike Davis. Precedent is a real thing.

PetrolGator

r/leopardsatemyface Scotus helped create this monster and now they gotta suffer like the rest of us

notsure500

So he's gonna release some J6r's on their doorstep?

Emotional-Ad8894

Why? Because they hold all the real power! Impeach Trump now!

LeftHandedBuddy

trumpy is one of those 'home grown terrorists'

Acrobatic-Ad-3335

From the same party who claimed that people were terrorizing Justices when they overturned Roe.

stupidcleverian

So, in his mind being forced to abide by due process for people he claims are illegal criminals means they must be released? What a child, literally a kindergartners understanding of everything.

Bcmerr02

Okay. Do it. They're not actually terrorists, so nothing's going to happen.

GuyYouMetOnline

They created this monster. Let them suffer the consequences of catering to him like they did.

Holiday-Book6635

He already released several thousand at congress a few years ago, he’s just being consistent

FloodPlainsDrifter

Yeah fascists go for the people in the institutions, not the institutions themselves

doxxingyourself

Release terrorists on SCOTUS, but 86 47 is a problem

XRPX008

Only liberals want due process? The Constitution is liberal now. Oh well, throw it on the huge pile of things conservatives pretended to care deeply about until the moment it was inconvenient for them.

Stinky_Fartface

Stochastic terrorism. If he did that, and a SCOTUS member was so much as threatened, that should be more than enough to give DJT the death penalty let alone impeach him.

We will not accept terrorising our SC.

Damn he kept all the January 6th rioters phone numbers?

BiglyBear

He realizes that even if these were all actual terrorists, that doesn't mean they will just automatically go on a full-on slasher-film murder spree wherever you happen to leave them, right?

DiscoInferiorityComp

So he wants them to get proper and fair due process?

galtoramech8699

He’s so brave and edgy to come up with  this stuff /s

madcoins

Can the Supreme Court impeach him? This is getting ridiculous

IowaRedBeard

He shows his stupidity every day. No wonder the uneducated love hi so much

ConsiderationNice819

I mean, it's only fair.  There's a convicted felon in the White House.

alangagarin

Sp_nach

He’s releasing J6ers near Supreme Court homes?

Realistic_Head3595

Well, the last time he released terrorists near government facilities, we wound up having to pay $5 million to the family of one that FAFO'd.  This could get expensive, but what's another couple trillion to the deficit at this point?

Prestigious-Run-5103

I hope he does it and encourages his number followers to harass them... Perhaps this will finally cause the tide to turn against this crazy orange motherfucker.

chopstix62

That fat draft dodgin Putin cum dumpster already released his own home grown terrorists on the congress.

lovetoseeyourpssy

So he has to recruit more terrorists, he let his last batch of terrorist supporters free?

Business-Key618

Altruistic_Mix_290

WhittmanC

selective releasing.

Roberts, Alito and Thomas won't have to worry about them.

neverpost4

By terrorists does he mean birthright citizens, democrat voters or legal immigrants?

KidRed

j021

UpDog1966

" Trump Recruitment of January 6th Mobsters to Be Sent To Supreme Court Justices Private Residents "

news at eleven

LarYungmann

I hope Trump does it. I love to see the Maga judges' faces when it happens.  They helped unleash the monster, and now it's eating it's own.

Nice-Apartment348

Looks like someone let Trump watch the “Walking Dead tv show”.

Current-Historian-34

Why would we want to release terrorists anywhere? It's not like you can sic them on someone like a dog, they look to do max damage. Unless they are just "suspected' terrorists, and then sure, no prob.

mipacu427

Sweet! Do I get to choose which one I live near?

AntonioSLodico

And what the terrorists will assault the judges? Or will they get back to life and figure out new ways to kill as many people possible ?

OvenIcy8646

Acuallyizadern93

and maybe that’s the reason he talked to the cartel?? my tin foil hate but idk it feels too weirdly coincidental that he was dealing with the cartel and now he’s saying all this.

What are the odds this whole insane idea emanated from the old flaming bag of dog shit prank?

Good hopefully they’ll finally wake the fuck up and do something.

armyofant

How about arrest the “terrorist” if you have evidence against them, and then try them in court?  Scooping them up and depositing them just sounds like more kidnapping and trafficking.

grantwolf1971

What terrorists? The people he's unable to prove they are terrorists?

headhot

The Supreme Court has ordered states to verify if any convicts are still incarcerated after completing their sentences.

Supreme Court Directives on Prisoner Release

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want