6th Circuit: RLUIPA Requires More Than Vegan Sabbath And Holiday Meals For Jewish Inmates

In Ackerman v. Washington, (6th Cir., Oct. 12, 2021), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Michigan Department of Corrections universal religious meal plan is inadequate to meet the religious needs of Jewish prisoners. The court summarized its holding:

The Michigan Department of Corrections serves a universal religious diet to all prisoners with religious dietary needs. It created this meal plan to avoid forcing prisoners to eat foods that violate their sincere religious beliefs. And because some religious beliefs forbid eating animal products, the universal religious meals are vegan. Because other prisoners require kosher food, the vegan meal is also kosher.

Gerald Ackerman and Mark Shaykin are Jewish prisoners confined in MDOC facilities. Their religious beliefs require them to eat a meal with kosher meat and a meal with dairy on the Jewish Sabbath and four Jewish holidays. They also believe that they must eat cheesecake on the holiday of Shavuot to celebrate the holiday properly. So they claim that MDOC policies that force them to eat vegan meals on these days substantially burden their sincere religious beliefs. And they argue that the MDOC needs to accommodate their beliefs under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). We agree and affirm the district court’s judgment in the prisoners’ favor.

Law & Crime reports on the decision.

Arkansas Supreme Court Rejects Inmate's Complaint Over Withholding Of NOI Publications

In Muntaqim v. Payne, (AR Sup. Ct., Sept. 16, 2021), the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a suit litigated pro se by a Nation of Islam inmate who contested prison officials' withholding of multiple copies of the NOI publication Final Call for review because of racist and inflammatory content. Plaintiff also alleged that the mailroom supervisor destroyed five copies of NOI books. Responding to appellant's RLUIPA and free exercise claims, the court said in part:

The prison must permit a reasonable opportunity for an inmate to engage in religious activities but need not provide unlimited opportunities to do so. Id. Muntaqim’s claims that the appellees restricted access to some but not all NOI religious literature did not state sufficient facts that appellees placed a substantial burden on the exercise of his religious practices.

The court also rejected free speech, equal protection, due process, access to courts and Establishment Clause claims.

10th Circuit: Muslim Inmate Can Move Ahead On Claim That He Was Forced To Shave Beard

In Ashaheed v. Currington, (10th Cir., Aug. 10, 2021), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a Colorado federal district court's dismissal of a Muslim inmate's free exercise and equal protection claims. The Colorado corrections center requires inmates to shave their beards at intake but provides an exemption for inmates who wear beards for religious reasons. Plaintiff says he repeatedly asserted this exemption, but that Defendant-- motivated by anti-Muslim animus-- forced him to shave.

The court rejected Defendant's qualified immunity defense, saying: "The constitutional violation alleged here was clear beyond debate." The court concluded in part:

Sergeant Currington’s refusal to follow the Center’s beard-shaving policy and grant Mr. Ashaheed a religious exemption, when he previously accommodated the religious needs of non-Muslims under the Center’s personal-effects policy, shows that he burdened Mr. Ashaheed’s religion in a discriminatory and nonneutral manner.

10th Circuit: Jail Chaplain Succeeds On Qualified Immunity Grounds In Suit Over Religious Diet

In Ralston v. Cannon, (10th Cir., Aug. 9, 2021), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a suit by a Messianic Jewish inmate should be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. The suit challenged jail Chaplain Hosea Cannon's denial of plaintiff's request for a kosher diet. The court said in part:

When Mr. Cannon denied the kosher diet request, it was not clearly established that his conduct violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. More specifically, the law was not clearly established that, even if Mr. Cannon did not act with a discriminatory purpose, his denial of a kosher diet could effect a violation of Mr. Ralston’s free-exercise rights.

10th Circuit: Parolee May Move Ahead In Suit Challenging His Placement In Christian Housing

In Janny v. Gamez, (10th Cir., Aug. 6, 2021), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a parolee, who is an atheist, should be able to move ahead with his Free Exercise and Establishment Clause claims growing out of a requirement that in order to stay out of jail he stay at a Christian homeless shelter and participate in its religious programming.  The court said in part:

[W]hile the Lemon test remains a central framework for Establishment Clause challenges, it is certainly not the exclusive one.... And claims of religious coercion, like the one presented here, are among those that Lemon is ill suited to resolve. Lee [v. Weisman] teaches that a simpler, common-sense test should apply to such allegations: whether the government “coerce[d] anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise.” ...

Mr. Janny argues that Officer Gamez’s written parole directive to abide by the Mission’s “house rules as established,”... shows the State required him to participate in the Mission’s religious programming.... These facts establish a genuine dispute as to whether the State, through Officer Gamez, acted not just to place Mr. Janny in the Mission, but to place him specifically into the Christian-based Program....

The record [also] allows Mr. Janny to reach the jury on his claim that Officer Gamez burdened his right to free exercise by allegedly presenting him with the coercive choice of obeying the Program’s religious rules or returning to jail.

The court also rejected defendants' qualified immunity defenses. 

Judge Carson dissented in part, contending that the director of the Mission should not be liable as a state actor.

ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision.

9th Circuit: Arizona Prison Rules Did Not Substantially Burden Inmate's Religious Exercise

 In Yokois v. Ryan, (9th Cir., July 30, 2021), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of an Arizona inmate's 1st Amendment and RLUIPA claims. The court said in part:

ADC’s policy requiring inmates to go through authorized vendors to purchase religious items was at most, an inconvenience, and not a substantial burden on Yokois’ ability to acquire religious items. Similarly, ... the ADC policy in question only prevented Yokois from pinning religious materials on his bulletin board while he was outside his cell and not using them. As a result, Yokois did not show that these policies so burdened his right to exercise his religion that he felt pressured to abandon his beliefs.

10th Circuit Rejects Qualified Immunity Defense In Suit By Native American Inmates

In Williams v. Hansen, (10th Cir., July 21, 2021), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a suit by Native American inmates against prison officials should not have been dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. Banning Native American religious services for at least 9 days and the use of tobacco for services for 30 days could have violated a clearly established constitutional right of prisoner to freely exercise their religious beliefs.

Archdiocese Sues For in-Person Access To Inmates

The Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee last week filed suit in state court against the Wisconsin Department of Corrections challenging its continued ban on volunteer clergy visiting prison inmates during the COVD crisis. The complaint (full text) in Archdiocese of Milwaukee v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections, (WI Cir. Ct., filed 6/7/2021),  alleges that the policy violates statutory provisions in Wisconsin on clergy access to prisons as well as the state constitution's protection of religious liberty. Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

3rd Circuit Dismisses Inmate's Complaint of Religious Necklace Confiscation

In Adams v. Correctional Emergency Response Team, (3rd Cir., April 26, 2021), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of an inmate's complaint that his religious necklace was confiscated in violation of the 1st Amendment, saying in part:

The complaint stated only that the missing necklace reflected Adams’s religious faith, with no description of how losing it affected his religious practice.

The court also held that RLUIPA does not permit actions against state officials in their individual capacities.

Court Orders Religious Dietary Accommodation For Capitol Riot Shaman

On Jan. 9, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that  Jacob Anthony Chansley was one of three men charged in connection with the the invasion of the Capitol building on Jan. 6. According to the DOJ release:

... Chansley was identified as the man seen in media coverage who entered the Capitol building dressed in horns, a bearskin headdress, red, white and blue face paint, shirtless, and tan pants. This individual carried a spear, approximately 6 feet in length, with an American flag tied just below the blade.

By late January, Chansley was held in custody in the D.C. jail where he filed a request for a religious dietary accommodation. He sought a diet of only organic food because he is a Shamanic practitioner. When the request was denied, Chansley filed an emergency motion in the D.C. federal district court.  In United States v. Chansley, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22788 (D DC, Feb. 3, 2021), the court handed down a lengthy opinion ordering the dietary accommodation, saying in part that:

... RLUIPA and the First Amendment provide prisoners with powerful mechanisms to challenge aspects of their confinement that substantially burden religious free exercise....

Ordinarily ... Free Exercise challenges to neutral and generally applicable laws post-Smith merit only rational basis review, under which the DOC's dietary rules would be presumptively valid. But the Court finds that Smith does not govern the present inquiry for two independent reasons. First, unlike the neutral and generally applicable drug law at issue in Smith itself, the DOC's decision to deny defendant a dietary religious exemption is more akin to an "individualized governmental assessment" of his religious conduct....

Second, Smith is inapposite because the DOC's policy is neither neutral nor generally applicable.... [T]he DOC provides dietary religious exemptions for both Muslim and Jewish inmates. Its sole rationale for withholding an analogous accommodation for defendant is that his religious views lack "religious merit." But that derisive language simply underscores the fact that not only is the DOC withholding a religious exemption for defendant that it already grants to other religious prisoners, but that it is doing so simply because defendant belongs to a disfavored sect....

Third, defendant has shown that the DOC's refusal to provide him with an all-organic diet is a substantial burden—both subjectively and objectively—to his religious beliefs....

Apparently the D.C. jail was unable to comply with the court's order, and Chansley was transferred to another federal facility that could comply. (See Court's Memorandum of Feb. 4, 2021). ABC11 reports on developments.

4th Circuit Remands Muslim Inmate's RLUIPA and Equal Protection Claims

In Gentry v. Robinson, (4th Cir., Dec. 7, 2020), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and vacated in part a Virginia district court's dismissal of a suit by a Muslim inmate who, for religious reasons, seeks to maintain a full beard. The court remanded plaintiff's RLUIPA claim instructing the district court to consider, in light of the prison system's change in policy to now allow beards, whether the claim is moot. The court also remanded for further consideration plaintiff's equal protection claim. The court however agreed that plaintiff's claim for damages for violating his 1st Amendment free exercise rights should be dismissed, saying in part:

Because no law or precedent at the time of the challenged conduct “clearly established” that VDOC’s grooming policy violated the constitutional rights of religious objectors like Gentry, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

9th Circuit: No Qualified Immunity For Refusing Inmate's Religious Diet Request

In Thomas v. Baca, (9th Cir., Oct. 28, 2020), the U.S.9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that qualified immunity was not a defense under the facts of this case for prison officials who refused an inmate's request for a vegetarian-kosher diet. The inmate showed his request was rooted in deep religious belief. Officials asserted no penological interest to justify their refusal.

Jail's "God-Pod" Program Violates Establishment Clause

 In Young v. Newton, (ED VA, Oct. 16, 2020), a Virginia federal district court, while rejecting a number of claims by Muslim inmates, held that the Riverside Regional Jail Authority (along with its superintendent and the program chaplain) violated the Establishment Clause when they created the Christian-based Life Learning Program (known as the "God Pod"). Participating inmates lived in a separate pod and had access to a microwave and initially were able to single-bunk. The court said in part:

The LLP was unquestionably based on Christian principles and the Bible, which ... is a Christian book. The administration of that program demonstrated a preference for Christianity over other religions and extended benefits to those who subscribed to that preference. Any secular purpose of the LLP, such as to teach skills related to intellectual, emotional, spiritual, relational, occupational, and financial success, was pursued through religious, specifically Christian, teachings, which had the primary effect of advancing Christianity at the Riverside Regional Jail.

CAIR issued a press release announcing the decision.

10th Circuit: Inmate Has Equal Protection, But Not RFRA, Claim Over Prayer Space

 In Tenison v. Byrd, (10th Cir., Aug. 28, 2020), the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an Oklahoma federal district court's dismissal of a Muslim inmate's claim that his equal protection rights were violated when he was not allowed to pray in the prison day room. Plaintiff alleged that Christian prayer was allowed in day rooms. The court concluded:

If believed, Tenison’s evidence is sufficient for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that Christians seeking to practice their religion in the dayroom deliberately are treated differently (and more favorably) than Muslims.

The court, however, rejected plaintiff's claim that his free exercise rights under the 1st Amendment and RFRA were  substantially burdened, saying in part:

We are not persuaded, however, that requiring Tenison to return to his cell to pray either prevents him from praying or subjects him to substantial pressure not to pray. Tenison is not prevented from praying; he simply must plan his dayroom time around the times he must be in his cell to pray. And having to forgo an unspecified amount of dayroom time does not amount to substantial pressure not to return to his cell to pray.

6th Circuit Upholds Denial of Inmate's Religious Diet Request

 In Miles v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 26666 (6th Cir., Aug. 20, 2020), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a "Moorish American Moslem" inmate's claim that his rights under the Free Exercise clause and RLUIPA were violated when his request for a pork-free diet was denied. The court said in part:

As part of his request, Miles signed a statement agreeing to "not possess food items forbidden by my religion's teachings." The defendants explained that Miles's "request was denied because [he] made prison store purchases that were inconsistent with his professed religious dietary restrictions," namely the repeated purchase of pork products such as summer sausage and chili. Additionally, Leach averred in a supporting affidavit that "[a]llowing a prisoner to have a religious meal when he openly flaunts restrictions imposed on other same-faith prisoners could provoke [*7]  resentment amongst other prisoners who are adhering to the tenets, which could lead to violence within the facility." "Prison officials have a legitimate penological interest not only in controlling the cost of the [religious] meal program and ensuring that only those with sincere beliefs participate in the program, but also in maintaining discipline within the prison."

7th Circuit's Limitation On Strip Searches of Inmates Protects Religious Sensibilities [CORRECTED]

 In Henry v. Hulett, (7th Cir., Aug. 11, 2020), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, en banc, held that convicted prisoners retain a Fourth Amendment right to bodily privacy during visual inspection of their bodies. At issue was an abusive mass strip search at a women's prison conducted as part of a cadet training exercise. While the court did not discuss religious freedom issues, an amicus brief (full text) filed by Muslim Advocates, as well as Christian and Jewish groups, emphasized the spiritual harm to prisoners done by strip searches of inmates whose religious beliefs place an emphasis on modesty.  Judge Easterbrook issued a dissenting opinion. Muslim Advocates issued a press release announcing the decision.

4th Circuit: Rastafarian Inmate Can Move Ahead With His Suit Over Solitary Confinement

Smith v. Collins, (4th Cir., July 10, 2020), is a suit by a Rastafarian inmate who spent over four years in solitary confinement for refusal to cut his hair. The inmate, Elbert Smith, says that his religion does not permit him to do so. The court, vacating the district court's dismissal of the lawsuit, said in part:

we hold that there is at least a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Smith’s conditions of confinement imposed a significant and atypical hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. Therefore, we vacate the district court’s summary judgment order and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Specifically, on remand, the district court should consider in the first instance, and after further discovery, whether the process that Smith received was constitutionally adequate and whether the Defendant-Appellees are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity.

6th Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Rastafarian Inmate's Diet and Fasting Claims

In Koger v. Mohr, (6th Cir., July 7, 2020), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an Ohio federal district court's dismissal of two religious accommodation claims brought by a Rastafarian inmate. The court concluded that officials had not offered adequate justification for refusing to provide an Ital diet (organic food, vegetarian no soy).  The court also concluded that plaintiff had asserted a valid equal protection claim as to refusal to accommodate Rastafarian fasting days:

Koger stated that he “fasted during Ramadan in the past because it occasionally aligns with the fasting days observed by Rastafarianism” and because ODRC did not allow him “to fast as a Rastafarian . . . without being subject to discipline.”

The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claims as to dreadlocks and inability to commune with other Rastafarians.

European Court Says Muslim Inmate's Religious Rights Were Infringed In Russian Prison

The European Court of Human Rights this week handed down an opinion in the case of a Muslim inmate in a Russian prison who claims that his religious rights were infringed in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights when he was reprimanded for praying in the middle of the night during Ramadan.  In Korostelev v. Russia, (ECHR, May 12, 2020), the court said in part:

Religious freedom is primarily a matter of individual thought and conscience..... However, ... freedom of religion also encompasses the freedom to manifest one’s belief.... The manifestation of religious belief may take the form of worship, teaching, practice and observance.... Since the manifestation by one person of his or her religious belief may have an impact on others, ... any limitation placed on a person’s freedom to manifest religion or belief must be prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in pursuit of one or more of the legitimate aims set out therein...

From the Government’s submission and the findings of the domestic authorities, it appears that the only reason for disciplining the applicant was the formal incompatibility of his actions with the prison schedule and the authorities’ attempt to ensure full and unconditional compliance with that schedule by every prisoner.

... Although the Court recognises the importance of prison discipline, it cannot accept such a formalistic approach, which palpably disregarded the applicant’s individual situation and did not take into account the requirement of striking a fair balance between the competing private and public interests.

The court in a chamber judgment awarded plaintiff 2600 Euros in damages and another 2000 Euros for costs and expenses. Law & Religion UK reports further on the case.

Negligent Violation of Inmate's Religious Dietary Needs Did Not Violate 1st Amendment

In Mbonyunkiza v. Beasley, (8th Cir., April 24, 2020), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held:

absent evidence that an underlying prison regulation or policy violates the Free Exercise Clause, evidence that a correction official negligently failed to comply with an inmate’s sincerely held religious dietary beliefs does not establish a Free Exercise Clause claim under §1983.

In the case, a Muslim inmate claimed that four times in 257 days, prison kitchen staff served him meals containing pork products. In rejecting plaintiff's claim, the court said in part:

[T]he Supreme Court’s cases, and all the Eighth Circuit Free Exercise decisions our research has uncovered, have involved claims alleging that a statute, or a regulation or policy implementing a statute, unconstitutionally prohibited a sincerely held religious belief or otherwise unduly burdened the free exercise of religion.

By contrast, in this case NCF’s food policies affirmatively accommodate the beliefs of inmates who do not eat pork for religious reasons. Mbonyunkiza does not challenge those policies. Rather, his Supplemental Complaint asserts that defendants are liable in damages because they did not properly implement those policies on certain occasions.