ILNews

DOC violated religious rights in denying kosher meals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge has found the Indiana Department of Correction was wrong to stop serving kosher meals to those whose religious practices required them to eat the specially prepared meals.

U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson found this week the DOC violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act by denying kosher meals to inmates who request them for religious reasons. Maston Willis filed a suit, which became a class action, against the commissioner of the DOC; Dr. Stephen Hall, the director of religious services for the DOC; and Chaplain Merle Hodges at the Miami Correction Facility.

Willis is an orthodox Jew and he and others who kept kosher were able to receive the more costly pre-packed kosher meals at lunch and dinner. Those requiring special diets were given diet cards. Breakfast wasn’t made with kosher ingredients or prepared by kosher standards, so Willis did not eat it. In an effort to reduce costs, the DOC instituted a policy that required those with diet cards to eat at least 75 percent of their special diet meals.

Since Willis did not eat breakfast, his kosher diet privileges were revoked for falling below the 75 percent threshold. Then, the DOC discontinued pre-packaged kosher meals and began offering vegan meals for those requesting the special diet, as the vegan meals didn’t cost any extra to prepare by the company contracted by the DOC.

Grievances filed by Willis were denied, and he filed this suit, Maston Willis, et al., v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction, et al., No. 1:09-CV-815. Judge Magnus-Stinson ruled in favor of Willis and the class in granting summary judgment on their complaint that denying them kosher meals violated the RLUIPA. Keeping kosher constitutes religious exercise under the act and the DOC substantially burdened the plaintiffs’ religious exercise when it denied them kosher food.

The DOC argued it had a compelling government interest to keep costs down and that’s why it cut the kosher meals, but increasing costs alone are not a compelling government interest, wrote the judge. This would also contravene 7th Circuit Court of Appeals precedent as ruled in Koger v. Bryan, 523 F.3d 789, 796 (7th Circ. 2008). She also found serving vegan meals is not the least restrictive means of achieving the compelling government interest; the DOC didn’t show that reasonable alternatives don’t exist and never considered whether there were less expensive kosher venders or the costs of creating a kosher kitchen at a DOC facility.

Judge Magnus-Stinson also found in Willis’ favor on his individual claim for declaratory relief under RLUIPA. Willis’ First Amendment rights were violated because the DOC’s enforcement of the policy against him failed each prong of the Turner test in determining the extent of inmates’ First Amendment rights. Also, since a First Amendment violation was found, a RLUIPA violation also exists, the judge noted.

She granted summary judgment in favor of Hall in Willis’ nominal damages claim, finding Hall not liable for damages. Judge Magnus-Stinson granted summary judgment for Willis in his suit for nominal damages against Hodges because he didn’t dispute Willis’ assertion that he knowingly violated Wills’ First Amendment rights when he confiscated Willis’ meal card.

Judge Magnus-Stinson ordered a hearing on the scope of injunctive relief on Nov. 30 because neither party has presented cogent argument as to whether an injunction should be issued nor illustrated what the injunction would entail.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT