Second Circuit gives one to the inmates

This inmate rights case issued last week. In earlier blog posts, I explained why their due process and conditions-of-confinement claims failed. But the Second Circuit further holds that two of the inmates have a First Amendment claim alleging that corrections officials violated their right to religious expression.

The case is Baltas v. Chapdelaine, issued on September 3. Inmates do have First Amendment rights, and the religious freedom provisions are found in the First Amendment. They do not have the same rights that the rest of us do, as they are locked up in a prison. The Supreme Court has said that jailers can restrict these freedoms if they assert a "legitimate penological interest," such as prison security. That deferential standard dooms many such cases, but not all of them.

Plaintiffs claim that defendants infringed their right to the free exercise of religion because they requested to attend Native American religious services but those requests were denied. As the Court of Appeals (Park, Nardini and Carney) puts it, "Defendants declined to offer any penological justification for refusing Baltas and Tarasco access to those services." This particular prison in Connecticut has a "sweat lodge," which allows inmates to pursue their Native American rituals. "Sweat-lodge ceremonies may involve healers and participants sitting around a steam-producing fire in a domed lodge."

Even though the prison did not offer any justification for denying the plaintiffs' request to attend these services, the district court said the defendants are nonetheless immune from suit because no prior case says inmates have the right to attend a sweat lodge. In other words, the district court said, objectiely speaking, plaintiffs cannot win their case. But the district court framed the qualified immunity inquiry too narrowly. The right question is whether inmates have the right to access congregate religious services where they already exist and are available. Viewing the issue from that angle, plaintiffs had a clearly-established right that defendants may have violated, and the case may proceed.

The prison also denied plaintiff's request to "smudge," which involves burning grasses or tobacco led by an elder or spiritual leader. The district court again granted the defendants immunity on the basis that there is no case that says you have the right to smudge in prison. Once again, the trial court framed the qualified immunity question too narrowly. The Court of Appeals finds that inmates have a more general right to attend congregate religious services. This claim will also proceed to trial.