27-c-3 Examples of Common Challenges to Prison Restrictions
| Library | A Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual (2020 Edition) |
27-C-3. Examples of Common Challenges to Prison Restrictions
This Section provides examples of common challenges to prison restrictions, including restrictions on attending religious services or worship areas, receiving visits from religious advisors, sending and receiving religious mail, changing one's name or diet for religious reasons, refusing to receive medical treatment for religious reasons, and wearing special religious attire. It describes how courts have applied the Turner test to examine First Amendment Free Exercise claims as well as how courts have applied, or might in the future apply, the RLUIPA standards outlined above.
Because RLUIPA generally provides more protection to your religious freedom than the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause,134 you should think of the discussion of the Free Exercise Clause as protecting your basic rights to freely exercise your religion in prison. At times, RLUIPA will provide you with more rights than the First Amendment. Also, because the law in this area is constantly changing, be sure to check for new RLUIPA cases that support your particular claim.
(a) Restrictions on Attending Religious Services, Group Worship, and Receiving Visits from Religious Advisors
(i) First Amendment Free Exercise Clause
Under the Free Exercise Clause, prisons must provide you with a reasonable opportunity to worship according to what you think is required by your religion.135 This right to worship applies even if there is only a minority of prisoners who practice the religion.136 However, courts have long held that this right may be restricted in certain cases.
For example, courts have said that prison officials may limit or prohibit religious group services when these services would be a threat to prison security.137 For example, in Thomas v. Gunter,138 a federal court of appeals said prison officials could deny a Native American prisoner daily access to the prison sweat lodge for prayer. Applying Turner, the court held the denial was reasonably related to a legitimate prison interest in security. The sweat lodge was near a truck delivery entrance in use during weekday afternoons, and the court accepted the prison's argument that frequent use of the sweat lodge created a security risk. The court noted that daily access to the sweat lodge would also have interfered with scheduled educational and vocational activities.139
Courts have also said that prison officials may attend prisoner religious group services, provided their presence is reasonable and consistent with prison security measures and does not unreasonably restrict the way in which the services are conducted.140 Prison officials may also regulate the time, place, and sometimes the manner in which religious services are conducted, as long as the restrictions are rationally related to legitimate prison goals.141 Similarly, courts have said that prison officials may limit or prohibit visits by religious advisors and counselors when such visits would undermine prison security, prison administration, or both.142 The time, length, and manner of these visits are also subject to reasonable regulation by prison officials.
For example, in Ha'min v. Montgomery County Sheriff's,143 a prisoner sued law enforcement officials alleging violations of his First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion. Friday Muslim prayer services were not regularly conducted during the period of the prisoner's incarceration, despite being authorized by prison regulations. Further, he was not allowed to conduct the Muslim service for himself as a result of a rule that only volunteer religious leaders from outside could perform such services, regardless of the religion. Since the prisoner could keep his Holy Quran in his cell and pray, he had alternative means to exercise his religion. In light of this, the court held that the prisoner's First Amendment rights were not violated.144
Note that although your right to attend services or receive visits from ministers may be restricted, you do not have to be a presently affiliated or professed member of a religion to attend such services and receive visits from ministers of that faith. You may also receive visits from the clergy of your choice even if you were not a member of that faith before being incarcerated.145 Instead, you may simply be thinking about joining the religion and want to attend services or talk to a minister in order to learn about the religion. However, a religious advisor may examine the sincerity of your belief and restrict your access to religious services of that particular faith.146
Finally, although prisons must provide a reasonable opportunity to prisoners whose religious practices are observed by a minority of prisoners,147 many courts have held that the accommodation a prison must make for a particular religion is proportional to the number of believers of that particular faith.148 For example, in Cruz v. Beto,149 a Buddhist prisoner alleged that prison officials violated his constitutional rights when they prohibited him from conducting Buddhist services in the prison chapel, offering religious materials to other prisoners, and corresponding with his religious advisor. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the federal court of appeals, which had dismissed the prisoner's claims. The Court held that the prison must give Cruz the same reasonable opportunity to pursue his faith as the prison gives to followers of more traditional religions.150 However, the Court also stated that prisons were not required to provide every religion with identical facilities and accommodate each equally.151
(ii) RLUIPA
A federal law known as RLUIPA prohibits prisons from imposing a "substantial burden" on your access to religious services and/or worship areas, except under certain circumstances.152 The prison can substantially limit your access to religious services and/or worship areas if (1) the limitation furthers a "compelling" interest of the prison, and (2) the prison limits your access to religious services and/or worship areas in the least restrictive way possible.153 However, if a court determines that a regulation does not impose a substantial burden or that the activity you are pursuing is not a religious exercise, it will dismiss your challenge and uphold the requirement.154
Keep in mind, however, that a court's determination of whether a rule imposes a substantial burden on your right to religious worship will depend on the specific facts of your case. In at least two instances, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has found that a policy requiring volunteers to attend prisoner religious group meetings did not impose a substantial burden, when the prisoners were able to engage in other means of worship.155 For example, in Baranowski v. Hart,156 the court found that a volunteer requirement did not impose a substantial burden on Jewish prisoners who wanted more meetings on Sabbaths and other Jewish holy days than their volunteer could attend. In a more recent case, however, the same Court of Appeals concluded that a volunteer requirement could impose a substantial burden, in a case where: there was evidence that no new volunteers would be available to provide group religious worship, the prison applied the volunteer requirement differently for different religious groups, and the prisoner did not have access to other options for worship.157
If you are able to show there is a substantial burden on your religious exercise, the government will need to demonstrate that the restriction on group worship or religious services is the least restrictive way to promote the compelling government interest.158 Although the court will require the prison to provide some evidence showing that the policy meets this standard, the Supreme Court has told courts to give "due deference to the experience and expertise of prison and jail administrators" while interpreting RLUIPA.159
For example, in Murphy v. Missouri Department of Corrections,160 the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the prison had not met its burden when the only reason it gave for denying a prisoner the right to practice group worship was that the prisoner was a racist whose religion limited participation to Anglo-Saxons. In contrast, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found the prison had met its burden in a case involving a Native American prisoner who had been denied access to a sweat lodge.161 There, the prison provided the court with evidence that it had suggested alternative religious means to the prisoner. In that case, officials had offered the prisoner an outdoor area where he could smoke a ceremonial pipe, suggested a medicine wheel, and sought to locate a volunteer to oversee a Native American group.162 Based in part on this evidence, the court concluded that the ban on accessing the sweat lodge was the least restrictive means to furthering the prison's interest in security.
These cases suggest that if you can show that the prison denied your request for group worship or attendance of religious services, and did not offer you any other options to your preferred method of worship, you may have a better chance of defeating the government's arguments that the restriction is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling interest.
(b) Mail Censorship
(i) First Amendment Free Exercise Clause
...
To continue reading
Request your trial