The Supreme Court issued several rulings this week that legal experts say significantly restrict access to remedies for individuals harmed by government officials, corporations, and federal policies.
In a 6-3 decision on Tuesday in *Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections*, the court ruled that individuals cannot sue government officials under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) unless those officials explicitly consent to suit. The case involved Damon Landor, a Rastafarian inmate in Louisiana whose religious beliefs require him to keep his hair uncut. Despite a federal appeals court ruling barring prison staff from cutting Rastafarian hair, guards forcibly shaved Landor’s head during his transfer to a different facility in 2020. While no party disputed the guards’ violation of RLUIPA, the Supreme Court majority, led by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, held that because Congress enacted RLUIPA under its spending power, liability requires consent to be sued, which individual prison employees do not provide. The court viewed the funding arrangement as a contract binding the state and local governments—not individual officials—and thus precluded personal lawsuits.
Critics argue this interpretation negates the statute’s purpose by denying victims a remedy when rights are violated. The ruling has broader implications for other federal laws enacted under Congress’s spending power, including those governing environmental and health protections, where individuals may lack enforcement options even if injuries occur.
On Thursday, the court also ruled against a Missouri man, John Durnell, in *Monsanto Co. v. Durnell*. Durnell had sued Monsanto (now owned by Bayer), alleging that the company’s Roundup weed killer caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and that the product’s label failed to warn users of cancer risks. A jury initially awarded him $1 million in damages. Monsanto argued federal law, specifically the Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and related EPA regulations preempted state liability claims concerning product labeling. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the state court’s failure-to-warn claim imposed labeling requirements “in addition to or different from” federal law, and so was barred. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, asserting that the failure-to-warn claim aligned with FIFRA’s fundamental objectives and was not preempted.
The ruling effectively denies compensation for many Roundup users alleging harm and calls into question a $7.25 billion settlement plan proposed by Bayer. Observers suggest the decision could deter lawsuits involving products regulated at the federal level.
In a third significant ruling on Thursday, the court upheld the federal government’s authority to block asylum seekers from entering the U.S. to pursue protection, affirming the policy of returning migrants at the southern border before they reach U.S. territory. The 6-3 decision in *Mullin v. Al Otro Lado* drew dissent from Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Jackson, who warned that the ruling would lead to more deaths and increased illegal border crossings.
Legal scholars and advocates note that these recent rulings continue a trend in which the Supreme Court has expanded immunity protections for government officials and limited courts’ jurisdiction over constitutional and statutory claims, placing significant obstacles before individuals seeking redress. They argue that these decisions favor government entities and corporations at the expense of injured citizens, effectively closing the courthouse doors to many serious grievances.