On Thursday, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit announced a reversal of a district court’s ruling pertaining to the right to prayer of Muslim prisoners held by the Arkansas Division of Corrections (ADC). The court determined that the lower court applied an incorrect standard in deciding that ADC’s policy does not infringe upon the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, a federal law protecting the religious rights of institutionalized persons.
The policy in question necessitates Muslim prisoners to pray alongside members of the Nation of Islam and the Five-Percent Nation, and permits the wearing of religious headgear, or kufis, only during prayer services. According to the reversed ruling, these stipulations did not violate the religious rights of the prisoners. As a result of the appeals court’s decision, the case will return to the district court to reassess whether the ADC policy contravenes the religious rights of Muslim prisoners.
The appellate court’s decision was issued by a unanimous three-judge panel, which indicated that the lower court’s ruling was flawed as it relied on past inconsistent religious behaviors of the plaintiff prisoners. However, the panel clarified that plaintiffs are not expected to demonstrate unbending adherence to their religious obligations to prove their sincere belief, thus necessitating a revision of the original ruling.
The initial complaint against ADC was brought forth by Gregory Houston Holt, known also as Abdul Maalik Muhammad, and Rodney Martin. They argued that ADC’s policy substantially burdens their religious rights by forcing them to attend prayer services with groups their beliefs prohibit them from praying along with. The plaintiffs also challenged ADC’s specification of when religious headgear could be worn.
However, the district court rejected these claims and held that neither the single-service policy nor the religious headdress policy substantially burdened the sincere religious beliefs of the plaintiffs. Moreover, it recognized these policies as the least restrictive way to maintain ADC’s compelling security interests.
The case will now pivot on whether the plaintiffs can demonstrate the sincerity of their religious beliefs. If they manage to do so, ADC will be required to demonstrate that its policies are the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest. The provision of separate services and allowing prisoners to wear alternative kufi styles outside of services, for security considerations, are among the suggestions to be examined by the district court in the new round of deliberations.