Brown v. Livingston
17 F. Supp. 3d 616
S.D. Tex.2014Background
- Institutional religious rights case involving Muslim inmates at TDCJ under a long-standing Consent Decree from 1977 ensuring Islam equality with other faiths.
- Brown v. Beto regime allowed indirect supervision of Muslim services when a chaplain was unavailable, averaging about six hours of religious activity weekly prior to 2013.
- TDCJ stayed the Consent Decree provisions and implemented the Scott Plan in 2013, reducing Muslim access to one hour weekly while Catholic/Protestant access remained higher due to volunteer availability.
- TDCJ employees, volunteers, and chaplains—muslim and non-Muslim—were at issue, with Muslim volunteers significantly outnumbered and unit placements affecting access to religious programming.
- Evidence showed no security incidents under Brown v. Beto and limited incidents under prior arrangements; Scott Plan claimed to address safety and cost concerns, but the record did not support those justifications for Muslims.
- The court concluded the plan and directives violated Establishment, Free Exercise, and RLUIPA rights and ordered the consent decree provisions II, 111(8), and 111(15) reinstated and AD 7.30/Scott Plan enjoined for Muslim and Jehovah’s Witness inmates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Establishment Clause violation due to access disparities | Brown | Livingston | Ongoing Establishment Clause violation; unequal access persists |
| Free Exercise Clause violation under Safley analysis | Brown | Livingston | Ongoing Free Exercise violation; policy not reasonably related to penological interests |
| RLUIPA violation by burdening religious practice | Brown | Livingston | Ongoing RLUIPA violation; less restrictive means available |
| Necessity of continuing the Consent Decree provisions | Plaintiffs/Intervenors | TDCJ | Continued necessity; sections II, 111(8), 111(15) shall remain in effect |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindh v. Warden, Fed. Corr. Inst., No official reporter citation provided (No year provided) (not used (omitted due to missing reporter citation))
- Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982) (establishment-related neutrality requirements)
- Everson v. Board of Educ., 330 U.S. 1 (1947) (national establishment clause framework)
- McAlister v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice, 348 Fed.Appx. 923 (5th Cir. 2009) (size-based access variations; no per se rule)
- Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112 (5th Cir. 2007) (pro se cases; context-dependent access to religious services)
- Adkins v. Kaspar, 393 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2004) (group size affects access rights in prisons)
- Newby v. Quarterman, 325 F.App’x 345 (5th Cir. 2009) (volunteer policy not always constitutional; safety context)
- Odneal v. Pierce, 324 F.App’x 297 (5th Cir. 2009) (Native American access; smaller groups affect outcomes)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) (RLUIPA framework; least restrictive means)
- Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Texas, 560 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 2009) (RLUIPA as context; substantial burden framework)
- Mayfield v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice, 529 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 2008) (scale of religious group affects access; neutral rules ok)
- Garner v. Kennedy, 713 F.3d 237 (5th Cir. 2013) (record-specific inquiry for prisoner access to religious activities)