Reluctant Judge Upholds Prisoner's RLUIPA Claim

Last week, in a case that has been in the courts for five years, a Michigan federal district court sustained a prisoner' claim for injunctive relief under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person's Act, while expressing strong disagreement with Congress' decision to enact the statute. Johnson v. Martin, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32278 (WD Mich., Dec. 7, 2005), involved the Michigan Department of Corrections' classification of the Melanic Islamic Palace of the Rising Sun as a security threat group. This resulted in prison officials taking from prisoners all Melanic literature and materials. Plaintiffs contend , however, that Melanic Literature is essential to practicing their religion.

While rejecting plaintiffs' First Amendment free exercise claim, the court found that RLUIPA imposes a heavier burden on the government. Finding that a total ban on Melanic Literature is not the least restrictive means available to assure prison security, the court held that RLUIPA had been violated. But the court's unhappiness with RLUIPA was clear, as it said:

Congress has taken the Supreme Court's fears in Turner [v. Safley] and made them a reality. Courts are now "the primary arbiters of what constitutes the best solution to every administrative problem," as RLUIPA "'unnecessarily perpetuate[s] the involvement of the federal courts in affairs of prison administration.'"... RLUIPA obligates this Court to cast aside its doubts about the dubious role it will play in prison administration, and therefore, this [Court will] enjoin MDOC from totally banning Melanic Literature from its institutions.