Fox V. Washington

     On February 6, 2020, the United State Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned the decision of a Federal District Court ruling. Fox v. Washington involved two inmates imprisoned in Michigan, James Fox and Scott Perreault, who identified as members of the “Christian Identity” religious group, also known as the “Church of Israel.” Perreault has been a member of the Christian Identity for over 20 years, before he went to prison, and Fox has been a member since 2012, after entering prison. They requested the prison’s official recognition to allow them to conduct their religious practices, such as the observance of seven “Biblical Holy Days,” apart from other inmates. The prison had recognized approximately 20 religions, including Christian denominations, but they refused due to the differences between Christian Identity and other faiths. The two men said that they couldn’t pray with others because their religious beliefs required “white separatism,” which is to say that people of different races cannot mix in areas of marriage or worship. They also observe Jewish Holidays, but they claim that they cannot join Jewish inmates in prayer because “the Jewish faith denies Jesus Christ.”

The District Court ruled that this case does not violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). David Leach, who oversees the Michigan Department of Correction’s “religious programming,” denied their request because they could have their religious needs met by an existing recognized religious group. He also states that their religion was known to have “racist and anti-Semitic views with a history of violence in the United States” with ties to the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups. Leach also mentioned that he denied their request to ensure a recognized place in the prison to ensure the security of the correctional facilities and avoid any threats to the custody. The district court considered the Department’s interest in safety and security, commenting that “[w]hile RLUIPA provides certain protections to an inmate’s ability to express his religious faith, it does not elevate accommodation of religious observances over an institution’s need to maintain order and safety.”

The Plaintiffs claim that the Department’s refusal to accommodate their religious request violated the RLUIPA. The Sixth Circuit reversed the decision and stated that the district judge had misapplied the law by weighing the prison’s interest in safety, rather than whether the prison was placing an improper burden on the Free Exercise Clause. The sincerity of the plaintiffs’ beliefs is not at issue, however the plaintiffs’ determined that the policy burdened their exercise of religion “in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.” The issue at stake is whether denying the plaintiffs’ religious request prohibits their right to Free Exercise of religion, even if the facility believes that it may pose a threat to the safety of the facility.

The Sixth circuit determined that the following precedent demonstrates that the plaintiffs have met their burden on their religious exercise. In Maye v. Klee, it was ruled that denying a Muslim inmate the opportunity to practice Eid would burden his rights under the Free Exercise Clause. There was a similar ruling in Whitney v. Brown where the court had found a substantial burden for denying Jewish prisoners’ participating in Passover Seder. These cases, along with many others, highlight the Free Exercise Clause, especially in prisons where inmates may not have the majority of privileges that non-incarcerated folks have. However, the religious beliefs in the precedented cases do not embody separatism or violent history directed at non-white people. These cases had not entailed potential physical or verbal harm to others.

Thus, I side with the District Court’s ruling. I believe that the two inmates, as members of the Christian Identity religious group, pose a potential threat to the correctional facilities. Therefore, the state’s interest is being prioritized. The Michigan Department of Corrections denied the plaintiffs’ request with the best interest of the other inmates and staff in mind and with reference to the RLUIPA. The inmates also had ample amount of opportunity to practice their religion in various forms, without being a recognized official religion by the prison. They had the opportunity to still practice their beliefs, just not in isolated worship from others which is what the official recognition would’ve allowed. Allowing them to practice in isolation from non-white inmates could have further cultivated their hate towards other people of varying races and ethnicities. Essentially, their right to Free Exercise of religion was not completely hindered, due to the prioritization and concern of others safety, which I believe is liable reasoning for denying their religious request under the RLUIPA. However, I do see how this could be violating the right to Free Exercise of religion if their religious practices do not cultivate hate in the end if that in turn doesn’t disrupt the safety and/or security of the correctional facility.