A Vermont Superior Court has ruled against Malachi Buswell, an inmate who claimed that the Vermont Department of Corrections (DOC) violated his religious rights. The court's decision, issued on November 6, 2026, addressed Buswell's claims for damages under the Vermont Tort Claims Act (VTCA) and potential constitutional violations. This ruling is significant as it highlights the legal challenges inmates face when asserting their rights within correctional facilities.

Buswell, who practices the Asatru religion, alleged that DOC employees interfered with his religious practices by confiscating his religious items and restricting his ability to celebrate important holidays. The court's ruling affects not only Buswell but also sets a precedent for how similar claims may be handled in the future.

Background

Malachi Buswell initially filed his case as a Rule 75 petition in 2024, seeking permission to file a tort claim for violations of his constitutional rights under the VTCA. After the court allowed him to file a separate request for damages, Buswell's claims were officially documented in case number 25-CV-04101.

In his complaint, Buswell claimed that DOC directed its employees to deny and interfere with his religious rights, which he argued are protected by both state and federal laws. He specifically mentioned that DOC confiscated his religious hammer, Edda, and runes, and prevented him from wearing a headband outside of his living unit. Additionally, he alleged that he was not allowed to properly celebrate Asatru holidays, including access to appropriate food and communal meals.

The Ruling

The court ruled in favor of the DOC, stating that Buswell's claims did not meet the legal requirements necessary for relief under the VTCA. Judge Navah C. Spefo noted that the VTCA does not cover constitutional tort claims against the state. The ruling stated, "The State of Vermont, however, has not waived its sovereign immunity under the VTCA for constitutional torts." This means that inmates like Buswell cannot seek damages for constitutional violations under this act.

Furthermore, the court examined whether Buswell's claims could be interpreted as being filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows individuals to sue for civil rights violations. However, the court found that even if this were the case, Buswell could not sue the DOC because it is a state agency and therefore not considered a "person" under section 1983. The ruling clarified, "DOC is not a 'person' within the meaning of section 1983."

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for inmates seeking to assert their rights in Vermont and potentially in other jurisdictions. The court's decision reinforces the notion that constitutional tort claims cannot be pursued against state agencies under the VTCA. This could discourage future claims from inmates who may feel their rights have been violated, as they face substantial legal hurdles in seeking redress.

Moreover, the ruling underscores the limitations of the VTCA and similar statutes in addressing constitutional issues. As a result, inmates may need to explore alternative legal avenues, which could complicate their ability to seek justice for alleged violations of their rights.

What's Next

Buswell's case may not be over, as he could potentially appeal the court's decision. However, details regarding any planned appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case could influence how future claims are handled in Vermont and beyond.