Untangling the Dynamics of Judicial Decision Making and Inmates’ Free Exercise Claims

• Author: John D. Burrow,Benjamin Meade
• DOI: 10.1177/0032885514562757
• Published date: 01 March 2015
• Date: 01 March 2015
• Subject Matter: Articles

The Prison Journal

2015, Vol. 95(1) 3 –22

© 2014 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0032885514562757

tpj.sagepub.com

Article

Untangling the Dynamics

of Judicial Decision

Making and Inmates’

Free Exercise Claims

Benjamin Meade1 and John D. Burrow2

Abstract

The federal courts have played a central role in establishing important rights

for inmates, including the Free Exercise of religion. However, there is little

empirical research on the nexus between court decision making, inmates’

Free Exercise claims, and correctional policies/practices. This research is an

attempt to understand this decision-making dynamic by using a sample of 330

federal cases from 2000 to 2007 to examine legal and nonlegal factors that

are suspected to affect Free Exercise claims. Importantly, security concerns

and legal precedents are among the strongest predictors of whether courts

will find in favor of inmates who make Free Exercise claims.

Keywords

prison, inmates, religion, Free Exercise, judicial decision-making

Introduction

Since the 1970s, a number of correctional policies have faced legal challenges

by both inmates and prison reform advocates, including the conditions of con-

finement, access to mail/reading material, and conjugal visits/visitations

(Association Harvard Law Review, 2002; Gutterman, 1995; Mannetta, 1998;

Miness, 2000). Although some headway has been made in securing important

1James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA, USA

2University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA

Corresponding Author:

Benjamin Meade, Department of Justice Studies, James Madison University, 90 Bluestone

Drive, MSC 1205, Harrisonburg, VA 22807, USA.

Email: meadebd@jmu.edu

562757TPJXXX10.1177/0032885514562757The Prison JournalMeade and Burrow

research-article2014

4 The Prison Journal 95(1)

rights for inmates, relatively little scholarly attention has been devoted to the

issue of inmates’ access to religion and religious accommodations (Welty,

1998). Even less is known about the decision making of courts as they sort

through the myriad of prisoner claims regarding religious accommodations.

One important insight provided by the literature is that inmates, notwith-

standing their offenses, should neither be stripped of their dignity (Smit, 2010)

nor should the trappings of citizenship, including access to religion, be stripped

from them.1 In an early decision, the Supreme Court held that “since govern-

ment has deprived such persons of the opportunity to practice their faith at

places of their choice, government may, in order to avoid infringing the Free

Exercise guarantee, provide substitutes where it requires such persons to be”

(School District of Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 297-98, 1963).2 This

decision opened the door for challenging many correctional policies that were

believed to hinder inmates’ Free Exercise (see O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482

U.S. 342, 1987). Notwithstanding this fact, uncertainty remains with regard to

the court’s receptivity to Free Exercise claims. Moreover, it remains unclear

what factors play a role in how courts decide these issues.

One especially problematic area for correctional administrators is how to

balance Free Exercise rights with the needs of the institution. Safety and

security, for example, of both inmates and personnel are paramount concerns

to correctional officials. As a number of scholars have pointed out, prisons

are inherently dangerous places (Goulding, 2007; Toch, 1985; Wolff, Shi, &

Siegel, 2009). From the vantage point of correctional administrators, safety

and security may hinge on quashing behavior that upsets the peace and order

of the institution. Thus, anything (requests for religious items, accommoda-

tions for religious holidays, etc.) that lends itself to jealousy, competition, or

complaints from inmates could be labeled as a threat to safety and security.

Over the years, the courts have seemingly agreed with this assessment given

their decisions in cases such as Turner v. Safley (482 U.S.78, 1987) which

ceded an immense amount of discretion to correctional institutions to deter-

mine the most appropriate way to address safety and security concerns.

Nevertheless, we cannot be truly certain of the factors that drive the courts’

assessment of security concerns and restrictions on religious accommoda-

tion. This research is an attempt to uncover what shapes courts’ receptivity to

these issues.

Judicial Decision Making and Criminal Justice

Administration

To begin, it is important to lay out the contours of this article. First, this article

does not purport to document the role of religion in the lives of inmates.