Muslim Group Challenges Virginia Prison's Christian-only "God Pod"

Last year on November 21st, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim civil rights group, filed a federal lawsuit against Riverside Regional Jail in Prince George County Virginia. The suit was filed on the grounds that the jail had violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the constitution by setting up a Christians-only unit dubbed the “God Pod”. According to the reports of inmates, a flyer posted all over the jail described a “Life Learning Program” conducted by Christian Chaplains from the Good News Jail and Prison Ministry, open to inmates of “any faith group”. The aim was to create living quarters that promoted reform and spiritual bonding by separating “soul-searching inmates” from the general population. In order to join the program, inmates were required to submit an application pledging their commitment to living according to the word of the Holy Bible and sit for an interview to be considered for acceptance.  Once selected and placed in this exclusive section of the prison, inmates were given their own cells, less time “locked down”, writing materials and access to luxury amenities like televisions and microwaves.

The lawsuit filed by the CAIR contended that the Christian pod violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or unduly favoring one religion over another. This “God Pod” program encouraged inmates at the prison to convert to Christianity in exchange for preferential, religiously based living conditions. This effectively gave Christian inmates and those willing to convert, access to a special and religiously specific program with benefits that inmates who are tenants of other faiths did not have. The lawsuit accuses the prison of unlawfully “signaling a message of condemnation against Islam” and other faith backgrounds at the prison. The prison has allegedly “effectively starved” Muslim inmates by not allowing them to eat before morning prayer when observing the Ramadan fast. Mitchell Young, one of the plaintiffs, outlined that he, like many other Muslim inmates, had been denied access to religious materials, prevented from meeting with religious leaders, and prohibited from studying the Quran in groups.

The CAIR asserts that this provision of special benefits to tenants of one faith while simultaneously denying them to others can be interpreted as an establishment of a “prison religion” and preference of one particular religion over another. The CAIR further demanded an injunction to order the jail to dismantle the pod and to provide Muslim inmates with access to Islamic programming and adequate nutrition during Ramadan.  These demands sought to remedy violations of the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clause, the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, among other statutory and constitutional violations.  As of Court Documents from the case’s hearing on September 20th 2019, a motion towards summary judgement has been filed and signed by U.S District Judge Anthony Trenga. The program was terminated on the advice of counsel after the lawsuit was filed, but I could find no information about movements to address the lawsuit’s other concerns of the provision of necessary meals to Muslim inmates during Ramadan.

The central question of this situation is whether or not it can be considered an unconstitutional establishment of religion when a state prison provides specialized benefits to tenants of one particular faith. This is a question which has come up from time to time in cases before the Supreme Court. In Lee v Weisman it was determined that it was unconstitutional to have a member of the clergy recite prayers at the graduation ceremony of a public school. In delivering the opinion of the Court, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy lamented that while the government may accommodate the free exercise of religion, “this does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause” p. 382.  He asserted that at the bare minimum, the Constitution forbade the government from forcing anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise. It was further held that there was subtle coercion of students to participate in what was essentially state sponsored religious activity, this therefore was a violation of the establishment clause.

 In this case we can find a lot of similarities between the public school and the state prison. Both are state run institutions whose patrons’ presence is legally compulsory. This makes said patrons’ actions that much more vulnerable to state influence. This state prison has employed a member of a Christian agency to be its sole Chaplain with authority to control religious services and accommodations for all prisoners. This Christian chaplain designed an unparalleled program offering inmates a preferential standard of living in exchange for conversion. I think that is evidence of a substantial amount of coercion into participating in state sponsored, sectarian religious activity. If this case were to make it to the Supreme Court, the same grounds that made Weisman’s  invocation practice unconstitutional should render this “God Pod” program unconstitutional as well.

As an accommodationist,  I would  have been more inclined to support this government aid to religion if the prison had made some sort of effort to ensure that the program catered to members of all religions without requiring conversion. However, in this program’s current existence it affords an elite existence to Christianity among all other religions at the prison. This, in conjunction with the prison’s denial of special services to members of other religions makes it impossible for me to see any evidence of neutrality between religions or between religion and non-religion here. In my opinion, this “God Pod” program was a lucid example of unconstitutional state establishment or support of Christianity alongside hostility towards other religions. I agree with the prison’s decision to end it and I hope they have made movements towards giving Muslim prisoners the support they need during Ramadan.