Religion.

U.S. Appeals Court

OPPORTUNITY TO PRACTICE SINCERITY

Lyon v. Vande Krol, 270 F.3d 563 (8th Cir. 2001). A prisoner brought a ?? 1983 action against corrections officials alleging violation of his right to practice religion, and on remand the prisoner was awarded damages and injunctive relief by a district court jury. The officials appealed and the appeals court remanded the case with instructions. The appeals court held that remand was necessary to determine if the prisoner had exhausted available administrative remedies. A prison chaplain had observed that a large number of inmates who professed to be Jewish were abusing the special food privileges they were given for the Jewish holidays. The chaplain determined that all but four inmates would be excluded from the prison Jewish community. Two criteria were established for allowing inmates to participate in Jewish activities: (1) proof of their prior Participation/background of Judaism; or (2) being grandfathered because they had continuously and consistently attended Jewish Sabbath services for three years. The prisoner was excluded from designation as a member of the prison Jewish community and he brought a civil rights action. The district court upheld the jury's nominal damages award, reversed the jury's punitive damages award against the former and present prison wardens, and reduced the punitive damage award against the chaplain from $100,000 to $30,000. The district court also directed prison officials to allow the prisoner access to Jewish artifacts, services and kosher food. (Iowa State Penitentiary)

U.S. District Court

OPPORTUNITY TO PRACTICE ARTICLES REGULATIONS

Tart v. Young, 168 F.Supp.2d 590 (W.D.Va. 2001). An inmate brought (sections) 1983 claims against a warden and commissioner of corrections alleging they violated his free exercise rights. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that a prison policy that prohibited inmates from "smudging" with herbs did not violate the First Amendment. The court also found no free exercise violations in the prison policy that denied the inmate access to a sweat lodge and by failing to establish Native American group meetings. The court noted that the prison policy required all religious groups to have more than one inmate from a housing unit. According to the court, the inmate's transfer from a Connecticut prison to a Virginia prison did not violate the inmate's rights under the Equal Protection Clause. (Wallens Ridge State Prison, Virginia)

U.S. District Court

RESTRICTIONS RFRA-Regligious Freedom Restoration Act

U.S. v. Jefferson, 175 F.Supp.2d 1123 (N.D.Ind. 2001). The government petitioned to revoke the supervised release of a defendant who had failed several drug urinalysis tests and who admitted smoking marijuana almost continually. The government granted the petition, finding that while the supervised release condition prohibiting the releasee's use of drugs substantially burdened the Rastafarian defendant's exercise of a sincerely held religious belief within the meaning of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the condition was the least restrictive means of accomplishing the government's compelling interest in uniform enforcement of drug laws. The parties had stipulated to the fact that Rastafarianism emphasizes the use of marijuana in ceremonies designed to bring the believer closer to the divinity and to enhance unity among believers. The defendant claimed that his use of marijuana was "for meditation purposes only" and to "give Praise to God." (Allen County Work Release Facility, Indiana)

U.S. District Court

RFRA-Regligious Freedom Restoration Act

PAROLE

Yshweh v. U.S. Parole Com'n 158 F.Supp.2d 1332 (S.D.Fla. 2001). A parolee sought declaratory judgment that his conditions of his parole violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment, and he moved for a preliminary injunction. The district court held that as a matter of first impression, habeas corpus was not the exclusive means to challenge parole conditions, and that the conditions did not violate the parolee's free association rights. The parole conditions prohibited the parolee, who was a leader of a recognized religion, from worshiping, meeting, or communicating with followers without the prior written consent of his parole officer. The court noted that the underlying conviction established that the leader used religion as a means to exhort his followers to commit numerous racketeering acts including acts of murder. The conditions read, in part: "You shall not associate or have any contact with members of the Black Hebrew group. This includes direct or indirect contact, thr ough any means, to include internet, television, radio, phone, written form or in person. This includes residence, employment, social or other activities, without the prior written approval of your U.S. Probation officer." (U.S District Court, Southern Division, Fiorida)

U.S. District Court

RFRA-Regligious Freedom Restoration Act

RESTRICTIONS ARTICLES

Young v. Saunders 169 F.Supp.2d 553 (W.D.Va. 2001). A state prisoner brought a civil rights action alleging violation of his First Amendment free exercise rights and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (EFRA), from denial of items necessary to practice his religion. The court held that denial of botanicals, candies, incense and stones was reasonably related to legitimate penological concerns and the denial was applied to all inmates. Officials had testified that they were concerned that the fragrance from herbs or other botanicals could mask the smell and identity of marijuana, that candles could be used to melt and mold weapons, incense and candles could cause fire, and stones could be used to harm prison staff. The officials also banned prayer oil and powder from outside sources, electing to sell non-flammable oil and generic talc in the prison commissary. (Augusta Correctional Center, Virginia)

U.S. District Court

FREE EXERCISE

Youngbear v. Thalacker, 174 F.Supp.2d 902 (N.D.Iowa 2001). Native American inmates brought a [section] 1983 action against state prison officials for violation of the First Amendment free exercise of religion clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause because the officials delayed the construction of a sweat lodge to be used to conduct Native American religious ceremonies at a state prison. The district court found that the year-long delay violated the inmates' First Amendment rights, did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, and that prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity for the First Amendment violation. The state officials had decided to wait for a Native American consultant to be hired before proceeding to construct the sweat lodge, but the court found that this was not reasonably related to valid penological interests in violation of the First Amendment because a consultant was available at all relevant times and there was no alternative available for performing the cerem ony, which is a central tenet of the Native American religion. According to the court, accommodating the inmates' needs would have had a negligible impact on correctional staff and would have imposed little cost. The court did not find that the delays were the result of discrimination against the Native American inmates and that the delays were "the result of mischance and not the product of discriminatory intent." Qualified immunity was granted to the officials because the "contours of the right asserted was not at the time of the violation defined sufficiently by prior case law" to the extent that the officials would have understoed that there was a violation. (Fort Dodge Correctional Facility, Iowa)