Yesterday, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals handed down decisions in two RLUIPA cases:
In Madison v. Commonwealth of Virginia, (4th Cir., Dec. 29, 2006), the 4th Circuit upheld the constitutionality of RLUIPA as a valid exercise of Congress’ spending power. It rejected Virginia’s broad sovereign immunity defense, finding that Congress conditioned Virginia’s acceptance of federal correctional funds on the state’s consent to be sued under RLUIPA. However, the court held that because RLUIPA does not unequivocally indicate that the waiver of sovereign immunity extends to money damages, the Eleventh Amendment bars claims for monetary relief against Virginia.
The case was brought by a Virginia inmate seeking the prison’s “Common Fare” meals. He claimed that his “Hebrew Israelite” religion directs him to eat a kosher diet. The United States had intervened in the case on the side of the inmate, and amicus briefs in support of the prisoner’s position had been filed by the ACLU, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and the Coalition of Prison Chaplain Associations. The Associated Press reported on the decision.
In Lovelace v. Lee, (4th Cir., Dec. 29,2006), the 4th Circuit in a 2-1 decision held that Virginia prison officials had not adequately justified their policy on Ramadan observance that resulted in a disciplinary denial of a Nation of Islam prisoner's participation in the Ramadan fast and weekly prayer services. It held that under RLUIPA, prison officials had the burden of showing that their actions were the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. The court held that mere negligent deprivations did not violate RLUIPA, but that here plaintiff’s claim against the correctional officer alleged intentional conduct. The majority also permitted plaintiff's free exercise and due process claims to proceed and refused, on the present state of the evidence, to find that a correctional officer defendant had qualified immunity.
Judge Wilkinson, dissenting, said "not content to recognize this case for what it is — a possibly legitimate complaint by a Muslim prison inmate that his Ramadan fasting rights were deliberately and maliciously violated by a prison guard — the majority expands it to what it is not, an excuse for top-to-bottom fine tuning of an accommodating policy designed to foster the very values of religious expression set forth in RLUIPA."
