Rufus West is a Muslim inmate serving out his sentence at the Green Bay Correctional Institution in Wisconsin. Like all other inmates, West is subject to strip searches regularly as part of the prison’s security protocol. It is a direct violation of the Islamic faith to reveal one’s naked body to anybody other than one’s spouse. Knowingly making this transgression leads to eternal condemnation. Not only that, but the faith preaches that exposing oneself to a person of the opposite sex will result in even harsher consequences in the afterlife.
West generally complied with strip searches, as he understands the necessity of such protocol in maintaining safety and security within the prison. However, he requested that he be searched only by male guards, as being seen naked by any woman other than his wife is a more serious offense in his faith. Initially, no issues arose because the facility typically has guards search inmates of the same sex. The prison’s policy regarding strip searches actually prohibits “cross gender” searches, “except in exigent circumstances”. The policy also specifies that two officers be present during this routine: one officer to directly conduct the search, while a second observes in order to make sure that the routine is conducted appropriately.
In July 2016, West was approached by Officer Isaac Buhle and ordered to strip. Isaac Buhle is a guard at the prison who was born female but identifies as a man. West requested to be searched by one of the male guards nearby. One guard agreed and began the search, but Buhle remained present and acted as the observing guard. As a result, West’s naked body was exposed to Buhle during this search.
Following this incident, West filed an official complaint and formally requested to be exempt from cross-sex strip searches. His request was denied in writing by both the warden and security director and West was told he would receive discipline if he inquired again. As a result, West filed a lawsuit against the prison by raising an RLUIPA claim, stating that cross-sex strip searches substantially burden his free exercise of religion.
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) is a U.S. law enacted in 2000. The part of this law that applies to this case is designed to protect inmates’ free exercise of religion. Specifically, the law mandates that no prisoner’s free exercise may be substantially burdened unless this occurs from the least restrictive means to achieving a compelling state interest. Thus by nature, cases involving RLUIPA claims invoke the usage of the Sherbert test. The Sherbert test, originating from 1963 case Sherbert v. Verner, first questions whether there is a substantial burden. If this is the case, then it must be assessed whether or not there is a compelling state interest to justify that burden. Lastly, if both conditions are met, then it must be decided whether there is another way to achieve that compelling state interest that is less restrictive towards religious freedom.
The question pertaining to this case is as follows: does Green Bay Correctional Institution’s refusal to exempt Rufus West from cross-sex strip searches place a substantial burden on his religious exercise? And if so, which takes priority: West’s religious rights, or the state’s compelling interest to avoid employee discrimination and adhere to the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
The case first went to the district courts, where the judge dismissed West’s claims and sided with the prison by highlighting the importance of nondiscrimination. The judge stated that the July 2016 incident had only occurred once and there was no indication it would happen again. Thus, the judge decided West had not proven a substantial religious burden. Regardless, the judge stated that any burden is justified based on the demonstrated compelling state interest to adhere to anti-discrimination laws (Title VII) in an ultimate effort to ensure that each employee is treated fairly and feels respected in the workplace. However, the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed both decisions.
I agree with the 7th Circuit Court. To evaluate substantial burden, the Court followed the decision of the 2015 Supreme Court case Holt v. Hobbs. In this case, it was unanimously determined that a prison not allowing a Muslim inmate to grow a short beard for religious reasons created a substantial burden and thus violated RLUIPA. The precedent set here is that there is a substantial burden when a prison makes an inmate choose between his religious beliefs and some form of punishment. This certainly applies to this case, as West was told he would receive consequences if he requested another exemption or failed to comply with a search. Even if West was not asked to strip by Buhle again, he lives with the fear of possibly making a decision that would either result in prison consequences or afterlife condemnation. This qualifies as a substantial burden.
The prison argued that the institution has a compelling state interest to deny West’s exemption in order to comply with nondiscrimination laws. The prisoner specifically cited Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which “prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin”. However, the Court did not find there would be any adverse effects on transgender employees in the event that West’s request is granted. One could make the argument that subsequent changes in job responsibilities due to West’s exemption might make Buhle feel offended, but the Constitution prioritizes religious freedom over the feelings of individuals. In addition, the prison’s Title VII argument is futile based on one of the section of the law itself; “Title VII permits sex-based distinctions in employment where sex “is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of [a] particular business or enterprise” (22). Conducting strip searches is one such operation in which sex is truly an occupational qualification, especially when the individual being searched has a religious objection to cross-sex searches. Thus, the Court decided that the burden is unjustified.
Now that West has been granted this injunction, the responsibility falls to the prison to ensure that there are enough male guards, both present at the facility and freely available, to conduct strip searches and accommodate West’s exemption.
Do you agree with the district court’s decision, or that of the 7th Court of Appeals?
9 comments:
Good post Lea! I would have to say that because the anti-discrimination laws do not include gender, but, instead, sex, I would have to agree with the ruling of the 7th Court of Appeals. If gender had been included within the discrimination laws, I would have to ere on the side of the original decision of the district court, however, the religious exemption in place is based on the sex of the person doing the strip search and not the gender identity of that person. Additionally, seemingly Buhle is not against this religious exemption because when West asked for another male guard to perform the search, Buhle stepped aside and was simply an observer. I think that both the religious exemption West requested as well as the anti-discrimination laws can coexist due to gender not being included in the laws and the religious exemption being granted.
What a well written post! This is an incredibly difficult situation because ensuring that religious freedom for one person means discriminating against the other. I think there is a clear substantial burden placed on West in the sense that he believes eternal damnation is to come for undressing in front of a woman. But there is a question of how he is using his faith to justify his belief. There are lots of Muslims who recognize transgender people, which effectively would cancel out the problem of dressing in front of the transgender guard. Many Islamic cultures actually embrace transgender people more than homosexuality, and in certain countries, a government will actually sponsor gender reassignment surgery. So I do wonder about the sincerity of West's belief, since many other Muslim's accept transgender people.
Lea, great post! I also agree with the 7th Circuit Court decision in ultimately siding with West. The burden placed upon West is substantial enough, having to choose between eternal condemnation or reprimands from the prison, to allow for an exemption. I also agree with your statement that although Buhle’s feelings may get hurt in the process, the court is there to defend peoples rights not defend peoples feelings. Additionally it wouldn’t mean Buhle’s isn’t allowed to do strip searches for other inmates, the prison isn’t targeting / attempting to discriminate against Buhle’s, it would be respecting one inmates religious beliefs.
Lea, I thought you had a great post. Although I thought your use of other cases was compelling when arguing the potential outcome but I have to disagree with your result. In America, people who identify as another gender as the one they were born. They are legally listed as the new gender. This means that he is being searched by a man who, although still against is beliefs, is said to be a lesser violation. Also, one must question his sincerity. If he is being searched by a man who is against his religion, why did changing it to what he saw as the opposite gender change this to the point of a law suit?
I do think this is a good post. I agree with Jake, disagreeing with the outcome of this case. The Prison's Policy prohibits "cross-gender" searchers except in pressing situations while also stating that two officers must be present during the search to make sure everything is appropriate.
In this case, the fact that Officer Buhle is transgender is a point that I think is unnecessary to be brought up in deciding how to handle this case. Officer Buhle identifies as a man. The only way this comes into conflict in this situation is if Officer Buhle is being identified in a way that is against how Buhle (legally) identifies himself, which is as a man. In this way it is homophobic, and for the court to change their decision on how to treat this case is discriminatory in my opinion.
I think that West stating that the prison threatened to punish him if he asks to be stripped by someone of the same sex as him is wrong, but this would be different than what he is currently trying to argue for in this case ( that officer Buhle aiding in the strip search was a substantial burden to him and his religion).
You had a great post! I enjoyed reading about the discrimantion incident along with the violation of West declaring that the strip searches were a substantial burden upon his free exercise of his religion and correlating what he believes will result in eternal condemnation. My previous blog post touched on whether discrimnation or religious convictions take priority, and as you wrote out, it will be religion that will take priority over discrimination. I also agree with your stance and stand by the 7th Circuit Court decision in siding with West. West was a compliant prisoner in undergoing the searches, therefore if his request is to merely have the same sex guard performing his searches it should be within his religious right, especially under the RLUIPA law and the precedent case of Holt v. Hobbs. Nice job evaluating this case.
This was a really well-done post! I struggled to find where I stood constitutionally versus morally in this case. While I understand West's substantial burden placed on him with his religious beliefs regarding who can see him fully nude, how can his sincerity with these beliefs be tested? Would not allowing a transgender male in the room be violating the policeman's equality rights within his workplace? Should the prison force the transgender policeman to step out of the room even though he identified as a male? I think this is a slippery battle between the rights of religion and testing the sincerity of it versus the rights of equality of how transgenders are viewed and treated in their workplace.
I agree with Amanda on this, I feel like the sincerity of West is debatable as there are many exceptions made within muslims when it comes to transgender people. In the United States it is legal to change your gender and in this case this person was legally a man, therefore the court is going against what the law is establishing to the point of enforcing the law and getting out of their lane. It is important to know the limits and checks and balances, this case went as far as the supreme court to contradict the same law that allows a person to change gender. I think the court was out of place in ruling for West.
I think that the decision in this case was essential in ensuring that there is no issue of a "slippery slope." Although West felt that Buhle's presence violated his religious beliefs, if Buhle is recognized by the government as a man, the state has honored West's request of only being viewed by male guards during these searches. These searches are a consequence of West's imprisonment, and although it is within his rights to request religious accommodations, he does not have the right to hand select who is present. Due to Buhle being recognized by the government as a male, I agree with the outcome of this case.
Post a Comment