The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled on Thursday that a district court used the wrong standard when it determined that the Arkansas Division of Corrections (ADC) policy that requires Muslim prisoners to pray with members of the Nation of Islam and the Five-Percent Nation and only wear kufis during prayer services does not violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. The decision means the case will be sent back down to the district court to determine if the ADC policy violates Muslim prisoners’ religious rights.
A three-judge panel for the Eighth Circuit issued a unanimous opinion that the district court used the wrong standard in its ruling. The court noted that it based its decision on testimony that the plaintiff Muslim prisoners did not always follow their religious obligations in the past. However, the court found that the proper standard does not require perfect adherence for the plaintiffs to show that they hold a sincere religious belief. Thus, the court vacated the district court ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Gregory Houston Holt—AKA Abdul Maalik Muhammad—and Rodney Martin sued ADC over its policy that only allows prisoners to wear kufis during religious services and holds services attended by Muslims as well as members of the Nation of Islam and the Five-Percent Nation. They argued that this policy imposes a substantial burden on their sincere religious beliefs in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act because their beliefs forbid them from praying with these members. The act provides:
No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
After a bench trial, the district court dismissed the complaint, finding that neither the single-service policy nor the religious headdress policy substantially burdens the plaintiffs’ sincere religious beliefs. Additionally, it concluded that the policies are the least restrictive means to further ADC’s compelling security interests.
Now the district court will determine if the plaintiffs met their burden of showing that their religious beliefs are sincere. If this burden is met, ADC must show that its policies are the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. The district court must also consider the plaintiffs’ suggestions that ADC provide two different services and allow prisoners to wear mesh kufis outside of services to facilitate security searches.
