37. Religion.

U.S. Appeals Court DIET

Beerheide v. Suthers, 286 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2002). Three state prisoners who were Orthodox Jews brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials based on the officials' failure to provide them with free kosher meals. The district court granted a permanent injunction and the officials appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding that failure to provide free kosher meals violated the First Amendment, and that a proposal under which the prisoners would be required to make a 25% co-payment for the cost of providing such meals was not rationally related to the legitimate penological concerns of cost and abuse. The court also found that the officials' alternative proposals that the prisoners buy their kosher meals at the prison canteen, or have the Jewish community provide the meals, were not reasonable. (Freemont Correctional Facility, Colorado)

U.S. Appeals Court WORK RLUIPA- Rel. Land Use and Instit. Persons Act

Fenelon v. Riddle, 34 Fed.Appx. 265 (9th Cir. 2002). An inmate brought an action against prison officials, alleging that the First Amendment required the prison to permit him to attend a weekly Jumu'ah service for Muslims, and that the time spent in the service should count toward the reduction of his sentence under a state work incentive program. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the inmate and entered a permanent injunction. The appeals court reversed and remanded, finding that the district court had erred in interpreting Jumu'ah as a non-routine religious function, which made it eligible for a prison regulation that governed excused time off. (California Medical Facility Prison, California Department of Corrections)

U.S. District Court RFRA- Religious Freedom Rester. Act BEARDS HAIR

Gartrell v. Ashcr0ft, 191 F.Supp.2d 23 (D.D.C. 2002). Rastafarian and Muslim inmates, on behalf of a class of inmates whose avowed religious beliefs forbid them from cutting their hair or shaving their beards, sued District of Columbia and federal prison officials. The inmates challenged the policy of housing inmates from the District of Columbia in facilities operated by the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC), which had a policy that prohibited long hair and beards. The district court ruled in favor of the inmates, finding that each individual decision to place or keep an inmate in a VDOC facility was subject to scrutiny under the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA). The court...