In Johnson v. Ellis, (D NJ, Oct. 15, 2025), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed a claim by a pre-trial detainee that his free exercise rights were violated. The court said in part:
Plaintiff essentially asserts that he was denied any and all access to ordained ministers and appropriate worship services for several months during the COVID-19 pandemic's height.... [T]hat claim does present an instance in which Plaintiff's religious exercise was substantially burdened. Plaintiff effectively could resort to nothing but private prayer for several months.... That said, the state did have a legitimate interest in controlling the flow of people into a county jail during a recognized pandemic.... Plaintiff does not allege that he was completely deprived of any ability to worship God, view televised worship services, or offer prayer during the lockdowns. Considered in total, Plaintiff has a borderline free exercise claim in which his rights to religious practice were burdened. That burden, however, was imposed as part of a neutral policy ... which was most likely sufficiently rationally related to the state's interest in slowing the spread of COVID-19 in its jails during an emergency situation. Plaintiff thus likely fails to state a plausible claim for a constitutional violation.
Even if Plaintiff did state such a claim, however, Plaintiff cannot show that the violation in question was clearly established.... [S]ome deference must be provided to jail staff in their response to the novel pandemic situation during its height, and courts should not infer constitutional violations where good faith efforts are being made to curtail what is perceived to be a deadly, difficult to contain, pathogen in the absence of clear guidance.... Defendant Ellis is therefore entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff's free exercise claims.
