Orange is the New Way to Justify Denying Constitutional Rights?

Benjamin Espinosa is a prisoner in Nevada’s Lovelock Correctional Center. Espinosa seeks to form a humanist study group so that prisoners can come together and discuss their humanist beliefs, His request has been denied over a period of two years. Nevada’s Lovelock Correctional Center allows more than two dozen theistic religious study groups to meet on prison property. The district court ruled that Espinosa does not have the right to gather with like-minded humanists on the grounds that humanism does not respect a deity. The AU and the Freedom from Religion Foundation filed a friend-of-the-court brief in late February to support Espinosa, as his case is currently being taken to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It is also important to recognize that the Federal Bureau of Prisons does officially recognize humanism and permit humanist study groups.


Two inevitable questions arise from this lawsuit. Firstly, is the prison violating the establishment clause by suggesting that only theistic religions are worth constitutional protection? Secondly, are Espinosa’s free exercise rights being violated because of the denial of his ability to form a study group?

The Nevada correctional center is violating the establishment clause by solely providing religious benefits to theistic religions. Benefits include, the ability to hold an open forum, exemption from work duty on holidays, and assignment based on faith. The supreme court found in Torcaso v. Watkins's unanimous decision that a theistic religion should not be given more governmental protection than a non-theistic religion (Munoz pp 97). It also can be argued that Justice Black regarded humanism as a religion in Torcaso v. Watkins case when he pointed to the fact that humanist organizations have sometimes been granted religious based tax-exemptions.

Additionally, United States v. Seeger exemplifies an instance when a non-theistic belief was treated in terms of a religion. Seeger’s devotion to goodness and moral compass is very similar to the beliefs that humanism centers around. Seeger wished to be exempt from military duty and at first was denied for his lack of belief in a deity. The supreme court found in another unanimous vote that the constitution was not meant to define religion, and further, that Seeger’s beliefs should be treated equally to beliefs in a supreme being. If the court had denied Seeger’s request, it would have been promoting theistic beliefs above others. Hence, this would establish governmental support of theistic religions. The need for government neutrality in terms of religion is just as present in Espinosa’s case as Seeger’s. United States v. Seeger should be referred to as precedent for why the denial of humanism religious benefits would violate the establishment clause.

Given, from above argument, that Humanism is an established non-theistic religion, practicing members of humanism should be treated equally to members of theistic religions. This is not the case in Nevada, which clearly demonstrates how the prison is discriminating against some religions, thereby promoting others. It is key to acknowledge that the prison is a government-run facility, so this policy is violating the establishment clause.

Moving on, the denial of the humanist's request to form a religious entity by the prison violates the free exercise clause. I would like to utilize Widmar v. Vincent as precedent. In this case, the court upheld that the University could not exclude groups from forming a “generally open forum to engage in religious worship and discussion” (Munoz pp 228) because of the content of their speech, as this would violate their free exercise rights. I think there are many comparisons to be made between the Espinoza lawsuit and Widmar v. Vincent. In both cases there was a system in place permitting religious groups to meet and worship in an open forum. In both cases there were specific groups being denied as a result of the content of their worship. The discussion of deities and the denial of their existence is content of humanist’s religious discussion. The court should again uphold the principle that the government should be content neutral when reviewing religions, as well as the fact that every religion should have equal opportunity to free exercise. One could summarize, the district court disregarded precedent and the religious clauses of the constitution when making their decision. To conclude, the law should not stop serving justice simply because of cell bars.