Constitutional Rights of Religious Observances of Incarcerated Muslims in State Prisons in the United States

• Publication year: 2023
• Author: Written by Sabah Azam

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCES OF INCARCERATED MUSLIMS IN STATE PRISONS IN THE UNITED STATES

Written by Sabah Azam^*

ABSTRACT

Anti-Muslim rhetoric and Islamophobia, exacerbated as a result of the expansion of policing and government surveillance of Muslim communities in the war on terror to challenge radicalization following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, have imposed restrictions on the religious freedom of incarcerated Muslims. Legitimate governmental interests, including national security interests, have justified an increase in judicial deference towards prison officials while limiting the religious freedoms of incarcerated Muslims. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) was enacted by Congress in 2000 to protect state prisoners' religious freedoms and holds religious practices to a strict scrutiny standard of review to determine whether prison regulations substantially burden an inmate's religious exercise. Despite RLUIPA's objective to protect state prisoners' religious practices, incarcerated Muslims face challenges on religious exercise as courts provide substantial deference to prison officials and their interests, including security, rehabilitation, institutional order, and discipline. As a result, Muslim inmates face limitations to their religious freedom.

The purpose of this article is to explore the constitutional rights of religious observances of incarcerated Muslims in state prisons and discuss the ways Muslim inmates are denied religious rights. The goal is to provide insight into the religious practices of Muslims and the challenges in regard to prayer and dietary needs. Contrary to widespread discussion of religious freedoms in prison, this article addresses the legal rights and religious needs of incarcerated Muslims and how prison regulations deprive them of their right to worship.

I. INTRODUCTION

Muslims represent nine percent of the state prison population in the United States.¹ The unprecedented rise of Islamophobia, systemic racism, and anti-Muslim rhetoric exacerbated as a result of policing and law enforcement surveillance of Muslims has deprived incarcerated Muslims of religious freedoms.² National security and safety risks as a result of the influence of extremist movements have warranted an increase in deference towards prison officials while limiting the religious practices of Muslim inmates.³ The prison administration has justified unwarranted religious restrictions and discrimination against Muslim inmates' religious practices by citing concerns regarding the

[Page 4]

radicalization of Muslim inmates, Muslim inmates' affiliation to extremist groups, and the security risks Muslims pose to the prison officials.⁴

Congress enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) to protect the religious rights of incarcerated individuals.⁵ Despite RLUIPA's purpose to protect the religious observances of prisoners, many Muslim prisoners still continue to experience discrimination in practicing their faith and receiving religious accommodations, including requests for Halal dietary restrictions, religious attire, access to religious services, access to the Qur'an and religious resources, observance of Islamic holidays, such as Ramadan and Eid, reciting religious texts in Arabic, and participating in five daily prayers.⁶ The deferential Turner standard grants substantial discretion to the prison administration.⁷ Prison officials have abused judicial deference and established frivolous and arbitrary barriers on religious exercise, curtailing their ability to worship.⁸

The first part of this Note addresses the religious rights of prisoners pursuant to the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment and RLUIPA. The First Amendment protects an incarcerated individual's constitutional right to practice his or her religion.⁹ RLUIPA mandates prisons to accommodate a prisoner's right to religious practice when a prison regulation places a substantial burden on religious freedom unless the prison can demonstrate that the prison regulation is the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling interest.¹⁰

The second part of this Note addresses the five daily obligatory prayers in Islam and the restrictions on Islamic worship that Muslim inmates experience in their requests for performing the weekly congregational prayers.¹¹ Prisons have consistently justified the denial of the right of Muslim prisoners to perform congregational prayer on the grounds of institutional order and security.¹² The third part of this Note describes the religious dietary constraints of Muslims and the discriminatory restrictions imposed on Muslim inmates that restrict their access to a Halal diet.¹³ Prisons have failed to accommodate prisoners' requests for a Halal diet by citing to legitimate penological interests of cost, security, and administrative burden.¹⁴

The fourth part of this Note discusses two landmark cases in which the Supreme Court analyzed the reasonableness of prison regulations and implemented a standard of review that was deferential to the interests of the prison administration.¹⁵ In Turner v. Safley, the Supreme Court assessed the constitutionality of prison regulations that limited communication between inmates in different institutions and prohibited inmate marriages.¹⁶ The Court established the Turner reasonableness standard that assesses the reasonableness of prison regulations.¹⁷ In O'lone v. Estate of Shabazz, the Supreme Court analyzed the constitutionality of a prison regulation that prohibited Muslim prisoners from returning to the main prison to attend weekly congregational prayers as a result of institutional order and security concerns.¹⁸

The fifth part of this Note elaborates on how courts analyze the sincerity inquiry in the free-exercise analysis and how courts have violated Muslim inmates' constitutional rights to religious freedom.¹⁹ Courts have historically denied Muslim prisoners' claims for religious accommodation by focusing on incentives of insincerity and irregularities in the inmate's conduct.²⁰ Finally, the sixth part of this Note analyzes the inadequacy of the deferential Turner reasonableness standard and articulates a proposed alternative test to the Turner test.²¹ The test outlined in Abdul Wali v. Coughlin is a more favorable standard that provides additional protection to prisoners' constitutional rights by implementing different standards of review that depend on the nature of the asserted constitutional right and whether the prison regulation completely deprives or merely limits the prisoner's religious exercise of the constitutional right.²²

II. RELIGIOUS RIGHTS OF PRISONERS

For many Muslim prisoners, maintaining an Islamic faith provides great solace and guidance in times of social isolation and disconnection.²³ Islam provides an opportunity for Muslim inmates to seek repentance for their crimes and find a newfound purpose in life.²⁴ Furthermore, religion facilitates the rehabilitation, recidivism, and successful reentry into the community for Muslim inmates.²⁵ The Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment provide protections for religious exercise to incarcerated Muslims.²⁶ Although inmates do not retain full constitutional and statutory protections, the United States Supreme Court has affirmed that "prisoners do not forfeit all constitutional protections by reason of their conviction and confinement in prison."²⁷ However, the inmates' ability to practice their religious faith in prison is restricted by the prison's valid penological interests to ensure safety, which include rehabilitation of inmates, deterrence of crime, and prison security.²⁸

[Page 5]

A. FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution enumerates the freedom of religion as one of its constitutionally protected civil liberties.²⁹ The Free Exercise Clause guarantees the right to observe religious beliefs and practices.³⁰ It provides: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."³¹ The Establishment Clause bars the government from establishing a state religion and endorsing one religion over another.³²

B. RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT OF 2000

Congress enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) in 2000 to protect the religious rights of prisoners and individuals confined to state or local institutions from government discrimination.³³ RLUIPA establishes a strict scrutiny standard to determine whether prison regulations substantially burden an inmate's religious exercise.³⁴ It prohibits the government from imposing a "substantial burden" on an institutionalized person's religious observance unless it establishes the burden is "in furtherance of a compelling government interest" and "the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."³⁵

III. RELIGIOUS PRAYER OF MUSLIMS

The Qur'an prescribes followers of the Islamic faith to perform Salah, or Islamic prayer, one of the Five Pillars of Islam.³⁶ The five daily obligatory prayers include Fajr, the morning prayer that may be performed from the beginning of dawn until sunrise, Zuhr, the noon prayer that may be performed from midday until afternoon, Asr, the afternoon prayer that may be performed from the late afternoon until sunset, Maghrib, the sunset prayer that may be performed from sunset until the beginning of night, and Isha, the night prayer that may be performed throughout the night.³⁷ Muslims gather for congregational worship during a weekly Friday prayer service, or Jum'ah, an obligatory prayer for all male Muslims.³⁸

Prior to performing Islamic prayer, Muslims are obligated to perform wudhu, or a ritual purification that involves washing of the hands, mouth, nose, face, ears, arms, hair, and feet, before prayers.³⁹ Muslims must face the Qiblah, or the direction towards the...