Bobby Brown v. Bryan Collier
929 F.3d 218
5th Cir.
2019

Background

  • A 1977 consent decree (Brown) allowed Muslim Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) inmates to hold group religious gatherings of more than four inmates under indirect supervision when direct supervision (staff or approved volunteer physically in the room) was unavailable; it also guaranteed at least two hours/week of worship time for Muslims.
  • In 2009 a Jehovah’s Witness prisoner sued (Scott), and the district court found the disparate treatment of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Muslims raised Establishment Clause concerns; TDCJ adopted the 2014 “Scott Plan,” requiring direct supervision for all religious gatherings of more than four inmates and limiting directly supervised group worship to one hour/week unless a volunteer is available.
  • TDCJ moved under the PLRA to terminate the 1977 consent decree; the PLRA requires termination of prospective prison relief unless the court finds prospective relief remains necessary to correct an ongoing federal-rights violation and is narrowly tailored and least intrusive.
  • The district court denied termination in part, concluding two provisions of the consent decree (equal weekly time and permitting inmate-led Muslim gatherings when no ordained minister is available) were necessary to remedy ongoing violations of RLUIPA, the Free Exercise Clause, and the Establishment Clause; it awarded fees to plaintiffs.
  • The Fifth Circuit majority reversed: it concluded (1) under RLUIPA the burden on Muslim inmates resulted from a dearth of Muslim volunteers rather than the Scott Plan, (2) Turner reasonableness governs Free Exercise and Establishment analyses and the Scott Plan is rationally related to penological interests (safety, staffing, PREA compliance), and (3) the PLRA criteria for continuing the consent decree were not satisfied; attorneys’ fees award vacated. Judge Dennis dissented on RLUIPA grounds; Judge King concurred in part.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether the 1977 consent decree must continue under the PLRA Brown: decree remains necessary to correct ongoing violations of RLUIPA, Free Exercise, and Establishment Clauses; narrow provisions should remain TDCJ: PLRA motion to terminate; Scott Plan neutral, needed for security and staffing; volunteer shortage, not decree, causes reduced Muslim worship Reversed district court; consent decree terminated—PLRA findings for ongoing federal-rights violations not met
Whether the Scott Plan imposes a RLUIPA substantial burden caused by the State Brown: one hour/week plus lack of Muslim volunteers substantially burdens required group practices (Jumu’ah, Taleem, Qur’an study); burden attributable to TDCJ policies TDCJ: burden arises from shortage of outside Muslim volunteers, not the direct-supervision rule; policy neutral and allows volunteers Court: burden results from volunteer shortage, not TDCJ policy; RLUIPA violation not shown (majority) — dissent would have found state-caused substantial burden
Free Exercise challenge — applicable standard and adequacy of Scott Plan Brown: Scott Plan prevents meaningful exercise of Islamic practices; not justified by Turner interests TDCJ: Turner applies; direct supervision is rationally related to penological interests (security, PREA), reasonable alternatives limited by staffing Court: Turner applies; Scott Plan rationally related to security interests and alternatives insufficient — no Free Exercise violation
Establishment Clause challenge — proper standard and disparate treatment Brown: Scott Plan and housing/volunteer disparities favor Christians over Muslims; strict scrutiny or Lemon should apply TDCJ: policy facially neutral; Turner reasonableness or at least deferential review; disparities arise from volunteer availability, not state preference Court: Turner standard applies to prison religious-administration claims; volunteer-based disparities are neutral and reasonably related to penological interests — no Establishment Clause violation (concurring judge disagreed on housing issue)

Key Cases Cited

  • Adkins v. Kaspar, 393 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2004) (lack of outside volunteers—rather than the direct-supervision rule—may show no substantial burden under RLUIPA when policy applied uniformly)
  • Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112 (5th Cir. 2007) (RLUIPA claim failed where missed services resulted from absence of qualified volunteers)
  • Mayfield v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 529 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 2008) (distinguishing Adkins where uneven application of policy suggested state-caused burden)
  • O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987) (prisoner Free Exercise claims reviewed under Turner reasonableness in light of penological interests)
  • Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (reasonableness test for prison regulations impinging constitutional rights: connection to legitimate penological interest, alternatives, impact, absence of ready alternatives)
  • Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982) (strict scrutiny for facial denominational preferences; contrasted with neutral benefits)
  • Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (2005) (strict scrutiny applied to racial-classification equal-protection claims in prisons; distinguishes Turner’s domain)
  • Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015) (RLUIPA/compelling-interest scrutiny requires attention to marginal interest and specific applicant context)
Read the full case