In Firewalker-Fields v. Lee the question of whether or not a Virginia correctional facility violated the First Amendment rights of a Muslim inmate by authorizing Christian centered religious services and allegedly restricting Islamic services.
In 2017, David Nighthorse Firewalker-Fields, a Sunni-Muslim inmate filed a complaint against the Middle River Regional Jail Authority and its Superintendent, Jack Lee. (Approximately 3 months after filing, Firewalker-Fields was transferred to the Virginia Department of Corrections where the legal battle continued.) This complaint was filed on the grounds that the prison was promoting Christianity, prohibiting Muslim religious practices, and unfairly segregating the broader Muslim community of the facility. Firewalker-Fields sought to participate in the Islamic Friday congregational prayer, Jumu’ah, but the prison claimed they were unable to accommodate this request due to a lack of volunteers and donations, and a limited number of available officers that would be required for this specific gathering. Ultimately, the prison argued “that kind of get-together for every faith was daunting.” This refusal of accommodation by the facility was seen as an abomination by Firewalker-Fields seeing as the facility permitted and facilitated Christian religious services.
Firewalker-Fields was classified as a maximum-security inmate, which is why the prison deemed him ineligible from attending group activities including religious services. While this might seem like an imposition onto the inmate’s religious freedom under the First Amendment, it is understood that prisons such as the one Firewalker-Fields was placed into are granted the ability to burden, even significantly, an inmate’s religious practices, so long they are pursuing “legitimate penological interests.” The prison had three policies that the court ruled were in line with these “legitimate penological interests”: no prison groups led by inmates; no large, in-person groups or activities of maximum-security inmates allowed; and prison classes and activities must be organized by volunteer or donation only. In the end, while the question of whether or not the prison justifiably imposed on Firewalker-Fields’ constitutional right to Free Exercise is in a bit of a gray area, the court ruled in favor of the prison. The reason for this ruling was due to precedents set in Supreme Court cases such as O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz and Turner v. Safely.
The restrictions placed on Firewalker-Fields, however, were not the only actions subject to scrutiny in this case. Firewalker-Fields also raised Establishment Clause concerns, claiming that the prison was unequally promoting Christian religious services over Islamic and other religious sects’ services and activities. The prison claimed that this was due to a lack of volunteers and donations from other religious sects outside of Christian denominations. This still resulted in an indirect burden to many inmates in the way in which Christians had a greater opportunity to practice their faith in the facility. Through these volunteers and donations, the prison implemented what they saw as non-denominational religious classes which featured the Bible as the central teaching tool, and then most importantly for this case, they broadcast a sermon-like Christian video into all of the common areas of the facility on Sunday mornings. Firewalker-Fields commented that to avoid these facility practices one could either remain in his or her housing unit or be forced to listen to religious teachings they might disagree with; in short Firewalker-Fields claimed it felt like one had to “be Christian or be penalized.”
In attempts to remedy this perceived oppressive nature of the prison, Firewalker-Fields requested to perform the traditional Islamic prayer of Jumu’ah under the supervision of the prison. This was in an attempt to have the facility begin to offer Islamic religious services and classes, which they did not already do so. He was refused on grounds that it would cause a safety risk to the facility.
This standard comes from O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, where the Supreme Court ruled that prison regulations restricting religious participation are constitutional if they are able to provide legitimate safety concerns. This precedent, applied in conjunction with the Turner Test, led the court to determine that the prison was justified in their restriction of Firewalker-Fields’ Free Exercise rights. In Turner v. Safely, the Supreme Court established what is now known as the Turner Test. The Turner Test is a four-factor rubric that questions: 1) rationality of restriction, 2) alternative means available, 3) impact on resources, and 4) absence of ready alternatives. With the precedent set in O’Lone and the use of the Turner Test, the court ruled against the Firewalker-Fields in his claims that the prison unlawfully imposed on his Free Exercise rights. The court however was ambivalent in their ruling regarding his Establishment Clause claims, inevitably remanding the decision back to the lower court to re-evaluate their earlier ruling.
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) is designed to apply a stricter scrutiny in cases like these, the standard failed to assist Firewalker-Fields here. While it had the potential of providing Firewalker-Fields with his strongest argument, the government must meet strict scrutiny in addressing whether or not a burden is placed on an inmate’s religion, RLUIPA ultimately failed to assist Firewalker-Fields because it does not allow for monetary damages to be awarded in cases against state officials. Since the state the court could not change Firewalker-Fields’ sentence or shift the nature of the original claim, RLUIPA is unable to successfully support the case made by Firewalker-Fields.
I believe Firewalker-Fields was slighted in the court’s ruling. Do I think that generally speaking, they applied the right precedents to this case? Yes, I do. However, I believe that the prison is being allowed to get away for very mediocre efforts to accommodate plurality of religious beliefs in the facility. While I understand the prisons must have an overriding state interest for safety within the facility; and I also understand that when you commit a crime you relinquish many of your rights, I still believe that the lack of considerate accommodation is unjust in this situation. Especially since there are clearly ways in which religion is broadly facilitated by the prison administration. If the prison wasn’t promoting any religious activity whatsoever and breaching the Establishment Clause of the first Amendment, than I believe that I would find myself positing a very different opinion. As it always seems to happen in cases like these, Firewalker-Fields wasn’t looking for preferential treatment, but equal treatment, a consideration I don’t believe was fully regarded in this ruling.
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/197497.P.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment