ILNews

Prisons face legal questions in managing inmate requests

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Ask and you shall receive, the Bible says, unless you’re behind bars, where accommodating prisoner-religious requests is more than a matter of just asking.

For those in prison, the complex legal questions that come with prisoner-religious rights have been in flux for more than two decades and remain the central points in lawsuits throughout the country on prayer practices, items inmates can possess in their cells and what foods they’re able to eat in order to comply with their particular beliefs.

That’s where prison officials and lawyers come in, evaluating the balance between safety and security and the need to have those religious requests accommodated.

aviva orenstein Orenstein

“This is an interesting area of law that I think a lot of people in the legal community don’t know about,” said Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor Aviva Orenstein, who studies this topic. “People would probably be surprised to learn about the very big divergence in what the First Amendment provides and how prisoner religious rights are protected. Essentially, religious rights of people are more protected in prison than those outside.”

Civil rights attorneys and those watching these issues say the claims arise on a regular basis in prison offender litigation and other lawsuits, and a federal suit involving a mandate to provide kosher meals for inmates continues to raise questions about Indiana Department of Correction practices.

Four inmates in state prison facilities are asking that the DOC be held in contempt for allegedly not complying with the 2010 ruling by U.S. Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson that ordered the state to offer kosher meals to inmates who request them instead of giving them less-costly vegan meals. The class-action suit filed in 2009 by Orthodox Jewish inmate Maston Willis at the Miami Correctional Facility contended the state’s cost-cutting policy of not supplying those meals violated his religious rights.

Magnus-Stinson ruled that the DOC violated the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which has been on the books since 2000.

The RLUIPA comes on the heels of a tug-of-war between Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States. The SCOTUS in 1990 held that the free-exercise clause of the U.S. Constitution doesn’t require accommodations of religious practices and that identical treatment of believers and non-believers satisfies the First Amendment. The court has never addressed whether it applies to prisons or if it conflicts with an earlier decision finding restrictions are allowed if they’re reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives. In response to the court action, Congress enacted the sweeping Religious Freedom Restoration Act to adopt a least-restrictive means test for public officials, but the SCOTUS struck it down and found the law couldn’t be applied to the states. Congress then passed the RLUIPA to address those state-specific issues, intertwining both religious land use and zoning issues with prisoner-religion rights.

In the Willis case, Magnus-Stinson found the state DOC violated the RLUIPA by not offering kosher meals. The state agency claimed it had a compelling government interest to keep costs down and that is why it stopped serving kosher meals. Willis and others were awarded $60 and the DOC was ordered to provide “certified kosher meals to all inmates who, for sincerely held religious reasons, request them in writing.” Although the DOC appealed, the state dropped that appeal after the DOC agreed to start offering kosher meals to inmates.

kosher The Indiana Department of Correction serves pre-packaged kosher meals to inmates who request the meals for religious reasons. (IBJ Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

But that is not happening, according to ACLU of Indiana legal director Ken Falk.

“The court’s judgment in this case is clear, and the DOC is not free to disregard it,” he said. “The DOC does not have the right to deny these prisoners an intrinsic element of their religious beliefs.”

DOC spokesman Doug Garrison said the state believes it is complying with the court order by using the written request process to evaluate whether an inmate needs that special diet. The individual is required to submit a form, explaining his or her understanding of the kosher diet and how it fits in with the specific religious beliefs and practices.

“The law doesn’t require that everyone who raises their hand gets what they want, and we have to balance that need with the basic fact that we have to manage our prison system,” he said.

The DOC religious and volunteer services directors review and evaluate that information to make a determination, he said. They’ve received many types of requests, from various groups wanting to pray in certain areas and wear certain clothing to comply with their religious beliefs as well as inmates requesting to be able to possess certain items in their cells, he said.

ken falk Falk

The prison won’t do anything unlawful to accommodate a person’s religious beliefs, and something such as giving that person live snakes – a request that’s been made – won’t happen no matter what religious practices someone might have.

Cost doesn’t determine how the policy and requests are evaluated, but it does factor into the policy decisions, Garrison said. Currently, 48 inmates receive three kosher meals a day at a cost of $4.46 per meal, which is more than triple the cost of non-kosher options that cost $1.18 per meal.

“So much of this is dictated by a lengthy and complex law, and so clearly it’s a matter of wandering our way through litigation or negotiation on what the law means and how we handle these situations,” he said.

These types of RLUIPA claims are frequent, Falk said, and range from kosher diets to where and how often individuals can pray in prison. Some of those same issues have come up recently in the case of American-born Taliban fighter John Walker Lindh, who’s being held in Terre Haute. He has filed a federal suit with other inmates asking the Federal Bureau of Prisons to allow daily group prayers in their highly restricted cell blocks. The ACLU of Indiana is involved in that case, which is also before Magnus-Stinson in Indianapolis.

“Some restrictive (prison policies and) practices can’t be justified, like in this kosher diet suit,” Falk said. “They have this practice to fill out this written form to glean sincerity, which is problematic. There’s a lot of resistance, in the sense of corrections saying that we know how to run our prisons best. But one of the things we can’t say in the U.S. and through our courts is that your religious practices are silly and you can’t express them, and that’s what RLUIPA protects.”

For Orenstein, these prison cases present some of the most interesting aspects about the still-controversial RLUIPA.

“If you come out wanting special food because you follow the Religion of Steak and Wine, no that’s just not going to fly,” she said. “Some are clearly faking and just want better food, and they’re basically just causing headaches without any compelling interest in having this. Others are unnecessarily restricted or denied their legitimate religious rights. There has to be some reasonable balance.

“Wardens can become the stewards of religion and you don’t want them to be in the business of determining what a valid religious practice is and isn’t. But that’s what we have.”•

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  2. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

  3. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

ADVERTISEMENT