In Brandon v. Royce, (2d Cir., May 15, 2024), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment dismissing a Muslim inmate's free exercise of religion claim against three Sing Sing prison officials. At issue was plaintiff's participation in a special meal for Muslim inmates and their guests around Eid al-Adha. Because the event was overbooked, prison officials offered inmates the special meal in their cells if they withdrew from attending the group event. Plaintiff withdrew but did not receive a meal. On appeal, defendants argued, among other things, that they had a legitimate penological interest in not delivering the meal to plaintiff's cell-- a concern that civilian and inmate cooks who prepared meals for the event might place contraband in the meal trays. The court concluded:
In granting summary judgment to the defendants, the district court did not resolve the parties’ dispute as to whether the September 26 event was a religious event related to Eid al-Adha or an unrelated “family event.” Rather, the district court relied on the defendants’ asserted penological interests and their view that there was an alternative means of Brandon exercising his First Amendment right: by attending the September 26 event and receiving the special meal there. Neither ground supports granting judgment as a matter of law to the defendants at the summary judgment stage....
To be sure, we do not dispute that an increased possibility that a visitor would introduce contraband into a prison is a legitimate penological concern .... We simply conclude that there is no unambiguous record support for the defendants’ claim that they denied Brandon a meal tray on September 26 because “the presence of outside guests increased the risk that contraband could be hidden in the food.”... And we further conclude, based on the evidence before the district court, that the penological concerns relied on by the district court and raised on appeal cannot at this juncture support summary judgment in favor of the defendants....
