In Jarrard v. Sheriff of Polk County, (11th Cir., Sept. 16, 2024), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Georgia jail officials violated the free speech rights of a volunteer county jail minister. Irritating both jail officials and other volunteer jail ministers, Rev. Jarrard believed and taught that baptism by immersion is necessary to salvation and that, without it, a person will be condemned to Hell. Policies governing participation as a volunteer minister went through a number of revisions. Ultimately, they resulted in Jarred being excluded from the program and baptism of inmates being prohibited. The court said in part:
At least for summary-judgment purposes, therefore, we conclude that Moats and Sharp engaged in viewpoint discrimination based on their disagreement with Jarrard’s beliefs about baptism. We further conclude that their disapproval of his volunteer ministry application can’t survive strict scrutiny. ...Moats and Sharp assert that they denied Jarrard’s applications for fear that his participation in the volunteer ministry program would “(1) tend to undercut inmate well-being and (2) unreasonably create problems for jail administrators.” Even if we were to indulge those assertions ... and even assuming that they constitute compelling governmental interests, denying Jarrard’s application was not the least restrictive means of achieving those ends. As just one example, the Jail could have posted notices stating that Jarrard would be addressing a potentially contentious topic and let the inmates decide whether they wanted to attend.... So too, they could have allowed other volunteer ministers to opt out of working with Jarrard so as to reduce the risk of contentious interactions. And to the extent that they were worried about security issues related to the performance of baptisms, they could have instituted precautions to minimize them. They could, for instance, have limited attendance at an inmate’s baptism or required an inmate being baptized to be shackled throughout the process to reduce risk of escape. There is no indication that Moats and Sharp attempted to take any such (or other similar) steps.....
The court also found that two versions of the policy gave jail administrators unbridled discretion in passing on volunteer ministers' applications.
Judge Rosenbaum filed an opinion dissenting in part, contending that insofar as damages were sought from the sheriff and his chief deputy, they were protected by qualified immunity.
