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.
