In 2019, Ruben Gutierrez, a Texas inmate on death-row was denied his request for a Christian chaplain to be there in his last moments before being executed. When Gutierrez found out that his request to see a chaplain was denied, he decided to file a lawsuit claiming that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) along with the First Amendment should ultimately guarantee him the free exercise of religion even when in prison. Gutierrez claimed that denying him the right to see a chaplain before his death was a direct violation of his free exercise of religion.
Prior to 2019, Texas had been known for permitting religious chaplains to be in the death chamber up until the 2019 Supreme Court case Patrick Henry Murphy v. Bryan Collier, Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. In this case, the state of Texas denied Patrick Henry Murphy’s request to have a Buddhist minister pray over him before his execution. The Supreme Court ruled that denying Murphy the right to have a religious minister pray over him before his execution was a violation of his free exercise of religion and was ultimately unconstitutional. After this case decision, the state of Texas decided to completely eliminate and prohibit the use of any type of religious chaplain in the moments before death.
It was this new rule passed after Murphy’s case that led to Gutierrez’s request to see a chaplain before his death to be denied. Gutierrez argued that preventing him from being able to see a chaplain was a direct violation of his free exercise and placed a substantial burden on him. The issue at stake here is whether or not this new rule passed by the state of Texas is a violation of inmates on death row’s free exercise of religion. In this case, Gutierrez not only argued that denying his request violated his free exercise of religion, but he also argued that federal law provides individuals of all faiths with the right to practice their religion freely, a right that should not be taken away if someone enters a prison cell. Gutierrez also argued that he had not requested for special treatment, but was just simply asking for a chaplain to pray over him before his execution, a practice that had been quite common in Texas for a very long time. The prison claimed that Gutierrez’s request was denied because of safety concerns, but in the Murphy case, the state of Texas said that the chaplains performing these services could be trusted in the most difficult circumstances including being in the death chamber. Gutierrez used this contradictory claim made by the prison in his argument. This case got up to the United States Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court sent the case back down to the Texas district court and asked them to decide whether or not having a chaplain come in posed a serious security threat. The Texas district court ultimately decided that Texas didn’t having any compelling interest in denying Gutierrez access to a chaplain, and that their actions violated Gutierrez’s free exercise of religion.
I agree with the decision made by the Texas district court in this case. Preventing Gutierrez from being able to see a chaplain before his death is a direct violation of his free exercise especially since he believes religiously that he needs to see one. Even though Gutierrez is an inmate on death row, he is still a United States citizen which means he is guaranteed his right to free exercise of religion, a right guaranteed to all Americans under the First Amendment. An individual does not lose these rights once they enter into a prison cell. Not allowing him to see a chaplain, prevents Gutierrez from being able to fully practice his religion which is why it is a violation of his free exercise. Based off of prior cases such as Patrick Henry Murphy v. Bryan Collier, Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, we see that denying an individual’s request to see a clergy member before death is an unconstitutional violation of their free exercise. This was a case decided on by the United States Supreme Court, which acts as the highest court of the land. Since these two cases are very similar and the US Supreme Court ruled that denying an inmate’s request to meet with a chaplain before his death was unconstitutional, I believe that the Texas district court made the right decision while also using this case as a precedent. This case is extremely important because it looks at whether or not prisons are allowed to prevent inmates from being able to freely practice their religion due to “safety” concerns. If the court ruled in favor of the prison, it could create a slippery slope in which other prisons might also go against the Supreme Court ruling and try to outlaw any inmates on death row from being able to see a clergy member before their death. If this were to happen, several prisons would be violating their inmates’ free exercise of religion, which as we saw in the Murphy case, is unconstitutional. Do you think that prisons can deny inmates on death row the right to see a chaplain due to safety concerns, or is that action a violation of their free exercise?
7 comments:
Really great case and analysis of the facts! I agree with your outcome in the case and believe this presents a violation to Gutierrez's free exercise. My main concern in this case is the lack of a compelling state interest and it is clear that this was the gap that was exposed by the Supreme Court. From reading this blog post, there does not seem to be any legitimate claims to safety concerns as the chaplain is provided, regulated, guarded by the prison guards and directors. There also seems to be no other cases or basis that demonstrates a history of safety issues with this practice. As a result, I believe that inmates still posse religious rights despite their criminal status and should be allowed a chaplain prior to their death in accordance with their religious practices.
This is a really interesting case. The death penalty is highly debated in general so I think it is really intriguing to learn more about it. I agree with the courts decision and I think that not allowing this man to see a chaplain is a violation of his First Amendment rights. Having a chaplain in the room during the death penalty has been a tradition practiced for years and it is wrong to deny a dying man of his wish. I do not think there is a compelling state interest to deny him of his request since it was proven that there was no safety concern. He is not asking for special treatment, he is only asking to be given his constitutional rights.
Great post! I agree that the outcome of the case was the best outcome. There is definitely an undue burden on people of religion if they are unable to perform sacraments, or confess their sins, or even just be in the presence of their holy being through a religious figure before their death. Following in the ideology of Goldman v Weinberger, the professionals have a better understanding of prison life and following their wisdom is a great way to make decisions. Staying with this idea, I agree with the decision.
I agree with the comments left by both Mia and Angie. There is not precedent set for denying a chaplain due to safety concerns and there was no inclusion in your analysis of Gutierrez being deemed as dangerous or violent in this setting. Just because Gutierrez is imprisoned, it does not mean that his constitutional rights are stripped away, and therefore I agree with the court's decision. I do question, however, if his right to religion includes the presence of a chaplain. He was never denied to opportunity to practice his religion or pray in his final moments, so I question if it is his constitutional right to have a chaplain physically present at that time.
This was an interesting post to read! I agree that constitutionally Gutierrez is required to have a chaplain if he wants to have one. The argument about safety is not substantial because the prisons used to have ministers and there were no complaints about safety concerns. As well, when the prisoner would be seeing the chaplain they would most likely be restrained. This is just a clear discriminatory act against a prisoner, although when entering the prison system, individuals lose some individual rights, they do not have to lose constitutional rights that serve no compelling state interest to not have.
Interesting post! I agree with your analysis and the decision of court. While once someone is incarcerated there is understandable limitation placed on their rights,especially when it comes to the safety and security of the prison. That being said there is no compelling evidence that the security of the prison is compromised by allowing chaplins or other religious leaders to be in attendance to deliver ceremonies at a person's death. If this were truly a large safety concern the prison should present those concerns. While I do agree that there are some scenarios where allowing for religious exceptions might compromise the security of the prison this is no one of them. I agree that it is unconstitutional and a violation of freedom of exercise to deny death row prisoners the right to a final religious ceremony.
I think there is a clear and substantial burden being placed on the inmate for not being allowed to seek religious counsel before death. The moments before someone's death are deeply important and many people seek religious counseling--being denied this because someone is in prison is a violation of the free exercise clause. There is no question to the sincerity of the inmates religious beliefs because the moments before death are a religious time for all.
Post a Comment