Circuit clarifies rules for religious discrimination cases

Inmates have rights, too. This one claims jail officials at Green Haven Correctional Facility prevented him from attending religious services in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The district court dismissed his case, holding that the services denial did not substantially burden his religious practices. The Court of Appeals reverses and  plaintiff can proceed with his case.

The case is Wiggins v. Griffin, issued on November 20. While plaintiff complained to jail employees that he had not been able to attend religious services ever since they relocated him to a different part of the jail, no one took action to fix the problem. While the district court thought plaintiff's inability to attend these bible study classes was de minimis in that he only occasionally missed the religious services, the Court of Appeals (Kearse and Menashi) disagrees, noting that it has held in the past that preventing a prisoner from engaging in congregational prayer constitutes a substantial burden on the prisoner's religious exercise. 

The Court notes that the Second Circuit has never determined whether the "substantial burden" test survived the Supreme Court's ruling in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), which said that governmental practices that incidentally burden religious practices do not violate the Free Exercise Clause if the practices are generally applicable to everyone, not just the religious practitioner. So we have a 33 year mystery. But the Court of Appeals does not answer that question in this case because the government concedes that the burden on plaintiff's rights was substantial. 

The Court also holds for the first time that plaintiffs in these cases must show the governmental defendants were deliberately indifferent to their religious rights. This state-of-mind test applies in other Circuits, and now it applies in the Second Circuit. Negligence will not win a case like this. Nor must the plaintiff show the defendants outright intended to violate their rights. Deliberate indifference is a middle-ground test, which plaintiff satisfies here since it appears jail officials ignored his complaints that he was not able to attend religious services.

Interesting concurrence by Judge Menashi, who says that plaintiffs in these cases should not be required to show they were substantially burdened in their religious practices, and that any burden violates the Free Exercise Clause. He reaches this opinion based on language in Supreme Court religion cases, including Smith, which seemed to have dispensed with that requirement. Yet, courts still apply that requirement. He advises that in a future case, the Second Circuit should rule that plaintiffs need only show a burden on their religious practices, not a substantial burden. "Three decades is too long for federal judges to be telling litigants which of their religious beliefs are 'unimportant.'"