US appeals court docket reverses ruling on Muslim prisoners’ proper to prayer – JURIST


The US Courtroom of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled on Thursday {that a} district court docket used the mistaken normal when it determined that the Arkansas Division of Corrections (ADC) coverage that requires Muslim prisoners to hope with members of the Nation of Islam and the 5-% Nation and solely put on kufis throughout prayer companies doesn’t violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. The choice means the case can be despatched again all the way down to the district court docket to find out if the ADC coverage violates Muslim prisoners’ spiritual rights.

A 3-judge panel for the Eighth Circuit issued a unanimous opinion that the district court docket used the mistaken normal in its ruling. The court docket famous that it based mostly its determination on testimony that the plaintiff Muslim prisoners didn’t all the time observe their spiritual obligations prior to now. Nonetheless, the court docket discovered that the correct normal doesn’t require good adherence for the plaintiffs to indicate that they maintain a honest spiritual perception. Thus, the court docket vacated the district court docket ruling and remanded the case for additional proceedings.

Gregory Houston Holt—AKA Abdul Maalik Muhammad—and Rodney Martin sued ADC over its coverage that solely permits prisoners to put on kufis throughout spiritual companies and holds companies attended by Muslims in addition to members of the Nation of Islam and the 5-% Nation. They argued that this coverage imposes a considerable burden on their honest spiritual beliefs in violation of the Non secular Land Use and Institutionalized Individuals Act as a result of their beliefs forbid them from praying with these members. The act offers:

No authorities shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a way that imposes a considerable burden on the spiritual train of an individual, together with a non secular meeting or establishment, until the federal government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that particular person, meeting, or establishment is in furtherance of a compelling governmental curiosity; and is the least restrictive technique of furthering that compelling governmental curiosity.

After a bench trial, the district court docket dismissed the grievance, discovering that neither the single-service coverage nor the spiritual headdress coverage considerably burdens the plaintiffs’ honest spiritual beliefs. Moreover, it concluded that the insurance policies are the least restrictive means to additional ADC’s compelling safety pursuits.

Now the district court docket will decide if the plaintiffs met their burden of exhibiting that their spiritual beliefs are honest. If this burden is met, ADC should present that its insurance policies are the least restrictive technique of furthering a compelling governmental curiosity. The district court docket should additionally contemplate the plaintiffs’ strategies that ADC present two totally different companies and permit prisoners to put on mesh kufis exterior of companies to facilitate safety searches.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*