First Amendment topicsAbout the First Amendment
Religious liberty behind bars: How free should prisoners be?

By Charles C. Haynes
First Amendment Center senior scholar

Talk about unpopular lawsuits. This month three Oklahoma inmates, all convicted sex offenders, filed suit demanding to be fed kosher meals as required by their faith.

Oklahoma prisoners aren’t alone. Disputes over the denial of kosher meals have flared up in a number of states, including Virginia, where an inmate filed a lawsuit in April.

Keeping kosher in prison is just one of many religious-freedom claims being raised by prisoners throughout the nation. The cases cover the religious waterfront from the Taoist denied access to his scriptures to the Muslim restricted from using prayer oil.

When making their case for accommodation, prisoners now invoke the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) — passed unanimously by both houses of Congress in 2000. The law was intended to restore First Amendment protections for religious freedom weakened in 1990 by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith.

RLUIPA works this way: Prison officials can’t impose a substantial burden on the free-exercise rights of prisoners unless they can demonstrate that the regulation serves a compelling state interest, such as prison safety. And that interest must be served in a way that is least restrictive to religious freedom.

The law isn’t intended to protect frivolous claims, only sincere religious beliefs. And even legitimate requests for accommodation aren’t automatically granted. To cite a recent example, a white supremacist claimed that his religious beliefs prohibited him from sharing a cell with someone from another race. He may be “sincere,” but a court ruled that prison officials had a compelling interest in not segregating inmates by race.

Safety, discipline, order — prisons have all sorts of “compelling interests.” Thus the courts often defer to the judgment of prison officials on issues related to security.

What about cost? Oklahoma officials are hoping that the judge buys their domino-effect argument: If the prison accommodates Orthodox Jews with kosher meals today, the prison will face 20 more demands for special religious diets tomorrow.

But it may not be enough to trot out a parade of horribles about potential costs or problems. When safety and discipline aren’t at stake, courts may well require prisons to ensure that inmates are able to practice their faith. In 2002, for example, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state of Colorado must provide kosher meals to Jewish prisoners.

Not surprisingly, many prison officials don’t want to jump through RLUIPA hoops in the first place. Their question: Should people convicted of a crime have a right to religious freedom while in prison?

My answer is “yes,” mostly for two reasons.

First, religious freedom isn’t a right given by the government — and it can’t be taken away by the government. It is one of those “unalienable rights” believed by Thomas Jefferson and our other Founders to be the birthright of every human being.

Of course, the rights of inmates are necessarily limited by the rules and regulations of the prisons. But in a society committed to protecting religious freedom, the state should have very good reasons before denying any person — including a prisoner — the right to practice his or her religion.

Second, it’s generally good for society to encourage inmates to observe their faith. True, not all religious beliefs and practices are conducive to good behavior (white supremacy comes to mind). But in most cases, religious faith can be counted as a big plus for rehabilitation.

Despite these arguments, it’s unlikely that “kosher meals for sex offenders” will become a rallying cry for religious liberty. But fortunately for prisoners (and for all of us), protecting religious liberty isn’t a popularity contest — and the First Amendment isn’t up for a vote.


Virginia seeks high court ruling on inmates' religious rights

Attorney general's office says justices should resolve split between 4th, 6th Circuits over constitutionality of RLUIPA. 04.10.04

Oklahoma inmates push prisons for kosher meals
Attorneys for state argue that serving Jewish fare would cost millions, might violate establishment clause, could cause riots. 07.13.04

Montana high court: Prison didn't violate inmate's religious rights
Donald Cape had argued prison officials failed to provide him with 'religious meals' during Lent and prevented him from engaging in certain religious activities. 09.22.04

State hasn't justified denying feast-day meats for Muslim inmate
Massachusetts high court says state constitution goes further than U.S. Constitution to protect religious freedom of prisoners. 04.11.06

N.D. high court: Prison can take away inmate's magazines
State justices find penitentiary rules on exchanging publications, displaying symbols are reasonable. 04.20.06

Convicted killer can't preach in R.I. prison
Calling decision 'somewhat of a close call,' federal judge says that compelling state interest in safety trumps inmates' religious-freedom rights. 06.08.06

4th Circuit upholds RLUIPA in siding with Va. inmate
State had challenged federal law after Ira Madison complained in 2001 lawsuit that prison officials were violating the act by denying kosher meals. 01.02.07

R.I. inmate wins right to resume jailhouse preaching
Settling three-year legal battle, correction officials adopt policy allowing Wesley Spratt to preach at religious services under chaplain's supervision. 08.02.07

Prisoners' rights

Analysis/Commentary summary page
View the latest analysis and commentary throughout the First Amendment Center Online.

print this   Print

Last system update: Monday, September 22, 2008 | 20:53:31
About this site
About the First Amendment
About the First Amendment Center
First Amendment programs
State of the First Amendment

First Reports
Supreme Court
First Amendment publications
First Amendment Center history
Freedom Sings™
First Amendment

Congressional Research Service reports
Guest editorials
FOI material
The First Amendment

Lesson plans
Contact us
Privacy statement
Related links