In Scharnhorst v. Cantrell, (8th Cir., Nov. 12, 2026), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a sheriff and two correctional officers had not violated a clearly established right when they enforced a Detention Center policy on reading material that limited plaintiff's access to religious texts. Thus Arkansas correctional officials had qualified immunity in a pre-trial detainee's suit against them alleging violation of his 1st Amendment rights. The majority said in part:
The other religious material cases Scharnhorst cites on appeal involve prison policies banning one religious text while allowing others.... That is not what happened here, so these cases do not clearly establish a constitutional violation....
The dissent points to the district court’s finding that “Scharnhorst and other detainees at the WCDC cannot obtain access to any religious materials at all.”... That is also blatantly contradicted by the record. ... Scharnhorst had access to kiosks and tablets on over 80% of the days he was detained. The tablets contained Bibles and, as the dissent concedes, other religious materials. Scharnhorst also was entitled to one religious text, and he admitted there were Bibles on the book cart.....
Judge Grasz dissented as to this part of the court's decision, saying in part:
... [W]hile Scharnhorst admits there were various copies of the Bible on the book cart, he alleges the book cart “was nearly impossible to get.” Recognizing the issue, the district court found there was a question of material fact whether the physical Bibles “were, in fact, available to the detainees”...
... [T]he court disregards certain parts of the record and reconstructs others in Defendants’ favor to overcome the district court’s conclusion that there was a “de facto ban” on Scharnhorst’s access to religious materials. Respectfully, that is not our role. The district court found a de facto ban on detainees’ access to religious materials and, in my view, a long line of precedent puts any jail official on fair notice that a policy or conduct that effectively institutes such a ban is a violation of the First Amendment....
