In Rasheed v. Commissioner of Correction (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct., April 7, 2006), the court held :
that the Massachusetts Constitution is more protective of the religious freedoms of prisoners than the United States Constitution, and that the proper standard of review to be applied to the infringement of such freedoms is consequently more demanding. In determining the constitutionality of department regulations and policies that burden the free exercise of religion by those in its custody, we will look to whether those regulations and policies advance compelling State interests, and, if so, are "tailored narrowly in pursuit of those interests."…. [The Massachusetts Constitution], art. 46, sec. 4, affirms that inmates of publicly controlled penal institutions are not to be deprived of the "opportunity of religious exercises therein of [their] own faith."
Applying this standard the court upheld Rasheed’s claims regarding denial of religious meals, but rejected the remainder of his claims. The Boston Globe today reported on the case, emphasizing the Court’s finding that the state had not justified its practice of providing Muslim inmates inappropriate food for the celebration of two holidays, Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha.
In Ahmad v. Department of Corrections (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct., April 7, 2006), the Supreme Judicial Court upheld the dismissal of claims brought by a Muslim prisoner who argued that restrictions on his possession of various religious items, and giving him vegetarian meals rather than ones containing halal meat, unlawfully prevented him from practicing his Islamic faith. Applying the standard it had just announced in Rasheed, the court rejected Ahmad’s claims. It also said that if the prison regulations and policies challenged by Ahmad are permissible under the Massachusetts Constitution, they will meet the requirements of RLUIPA.
