207 F. Supp. 3d 886
W.D. Wis.2016Background
- Plaintiffs Aiello and Scolman are Waupun Correctional Institution (WCI) inmates who sued DOC officials under RLUIPA and the First Amendment alleging restrictions on Jewish religious exercise: no inmate-led Shabbat services, limits on Seder food, and reduction of warm kosher meals.
- DOC policy bars inmate-led religious services; services must be led by a qualified volunteer (chaplain or outside spiritual leader). DOC cites security concerns (power hierarchies, gang infiltration, contraband) for the ban.
- Historically WCI sometimes allowed small inmate-led gatherings (Aiello led groups of 2–4 in a monitored resource room) and had periodic rabbi volunteers; since mid-2015 no rabbi volunteer has been available.
- Seder: DOC moved from purchasing individual Seder items to permitting a donated communal Seder plate (2013–2015) and adopted a 2016 policy allowing inmates to request/ purchase individual ceremonial food items with a 90-day advance request requirement.
- Kosher meals: DOC replaced a hot evening kosher entrée with a cold prepackaged kosher bag (citing nutrition parity, cost/resource savings, and security concerns regarding powdered milk). Defendants produce evidence the kosher plan meets caloric/nutritional goals (approx. 2500–2750 kcal/day).
- Procedural: Court grants renewed request to recruit counsel for plaintiffs; denies plaintiffs’ summary judgment; grants defendants’ summary judgment in part and denies in part. Only remaining claim for trial: Aiello’s RLUIPA challenge to the ban on inmate-led Shabbat services (bench trial).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ban on inmate-led Shabbat services (RLUIPA) | Aiello: denying in-person, group, inmate-led Shabbat services substantially burdens his religious exercise. | DOC: ban is needed for security; inmate-led groups create leadership hierarchies, gang/contraband risks; deference to prison administrators. | RLUIPA: genuine fact issue whether ban is least restrictive means; summary judgment denied for both sides; claim proceeds to bench trial. |
| Ban on inmate-led Shabbat services (Free Exercise) | Aiello: same as above — constitutional free exercise violation. | DOC: policy is neutral and generally applicable and reasonably related to penological interests; security justifies the ban. | Free Exercise: summary judgment for defendants; policy neutral and related to legitimate penological interests; qualified immunity would apply. |
| Seder plate access (RLUIPA & Free Exercise) | Plaintiffs: switching to communal plate and later to 90-day purchase request substantially burdens Seder observance. | DOC: inmates had communal plate (2013–2015) and 2016 policy allows individual purchases; plaintiffs offer no evidence communal plate or purchase process prevents ritual. | Summary judgment for defendants; plaintiffs failed to show a substantial burden on Seder ritual given communal plate and the new request procedure (may revisit if new evidence shows unworkability). |
| Kosher meal changes (RLUIPA, Free Exercise, Establishment) | Scolman: substitution of hot evening kosher meal with cold bag reduced nutrition and targeted Jewish inmates, violating religious rights and Establishment/Equal Protection. | DOC: change driven by nutrition parity, cost/resource savings, and security (powdered milk); kosher plan meets caloric goals; no discriminatory intent. | Summary judgment for defendants on RLUIPA and Free Exercise (no substantial burden shown); Establishment claim fails (secular reasons supported); qualified immunity applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (U.S. 2015) (RLUIPA substantial-burden standard; "seriously burdens" religious exercise)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (U.S. 2014) (RLUIPA burden discussion cited for definition of substantial burden)
- Schlemm v. Wall, 784 F.3d 362 (7th Cir. 2015) (RLUIPA requires more than modest burden; comparing denial of traditional foods)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (U.S. 2005) (deference to prison administrators in RLUIPA context but "context matters")
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (Turner factors for assessing regulations' relation to penological interests)
- Nelson v. Miller, 570 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2009) (prisoner diet cases; adequate nutrition as part of burden analysis)
- Borzych v. Frank, 439 F.3d 388 (7th Cir. 2006) (prison security is a compelling interest)
- Johnson-Bey v. Lane, 863 F.2d 1308 (7th Cir. 1988) (upholding bans on inmate-led religious services)
- West v. Grams, [citation="607 F. App'x 561"] (7th Cir. 2015) (noting prison must justify ban as least restrictive means where inmate-led services previously permitted)