In Brooks v. Smith, (ED TN, July 30, 2026), a Tennessee federal district court refused to set aside its previous dismissal of a suit brought by a clergyman who contends that he was being prevented from participating in religious services for prisoners. He wants to participate in Holy Communion and in anointment for healing and deliverance with inmates. The court said in part:
Here, Plaintiff is not alleging that Defendants have prohibited him from practicing Holy Communion or anointment altogether. Rather, he challenges restrictions on conducting Holy Communion and anointment within a correctional facility.... That distinction matters.... [T]he Free Exercise Clause does not guarantee unfettered access to practice one’s religion in any manner or location one chooses. Indeed, courts have recognized that outside clergy and chaplains do not possess a constitutional right to enter correctional institutions to administer religious services or sacraments. ...
Plaintiffs pointed to Coalition for Spiritual v. Noem, a 2026 federal district court case that held ICE agents violated RFRA when they denied a religious group entry into an ICE facility to minister to detainees. Distinguishing that case, the court said in part:
... RFRA ... has no application to Plaintiff’s claims because it does not apply to state or local governments.... Furthermore, while an individual may have a valid cause of action against the federal government under RFRA, it does not necessarily follow that the same conduct by a state government is cognizable under the Free Exercise Clause. This is because RFRA provides broader protections for religious exercise and imposes a far more demanding standard on government action than the Free Exercise Clause itself....
The court also rejected plaintiff's Establishment Clause argument.
