Muslim inmate can show irreparable injury from prison laundry policy

The inmate/plaintiff in this case alleges that prison policy violates his rights under both the Free Exercise Clause and the statute that similarly protects religious freedom. The policy required plaintiff to launder his clothing with those of non-Muslim inmates who consume beef and pork products. This issue is interesting but the Court of Appeals does not address the merits, holding instead that this case is ripe for judicial review.

The case is Tripathy v. Lockwood, a summary order issued on December 19. Plaintiff says the laundry policy gives him few alternatives, such as washing his clothing by hand or going long periods of time without washing his clothing. Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction against this policy, but the district court denied that relief, holding that he waited too long to bring the lawsuit, which means there could not have been irreparable harm to plaintiff's religious freedom rights. Was this the right call? It was not, says the Court of Appeals (Chin, Carney and Robinson), which summarizes the state of the law in this area and reminds us that religious and other constitutional freedoms are paramount.

While a delay in seeking an injunction may support a finding that the plaintiff did not suffer irreparable harm in challenging a policy, cases that stand for that proposition do not involve constitutional rights, the loss of which, even for minimal periods of time, is considered "irreparable injury" for purposes of seeking a preliminary injunction. The same is true for cases brought under the First Amendment and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). This constitutional principle, and the fact that plaintiff as an inmate had logistical difficulties in bringing this case in the first place, suggest irreparable harm. What the Court is saying that an injunction against an unconstitutional policy is never tardy.

On remand, the Western District of New York has to decide if, apart from irreparable harm, plaintiff can show he is likely to win the case on the merits, i.e., whether the DOCCS policy violates the rights of Muslim inmates.