Domineque Hakim Marcelle Ray v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections
915 F.3d 689
11th Cir.2019Background
- Domineque Ray, a devout Muslim on Alabama death row, requested his Muslim imam be allowed inside the execution chamber and that the institutional Christian chaplain be excluded; the Warden and chaplain denied these requests on January 23, 2019.
- Ray filed an emergency § 1983 / RLUIPA / Establishment Clause suit on January 28, 2019 seeking (1) exclusion of the Holman Christian chaplain from the death chamber and (2) admission of his imam to provide final spiritual rites; he also raised a separate RLUIPA claim about method of execution (not pressed here).
- Alabama stated its long-standing practice places the Holman Christian chaplain inside the execution chamber to minister to inmates; non-ADOC spiritual advisors may observe only from a separate witness room; the state offered to waive the chaplain’s presence for Ray but refused to allow Ray’s imam into the chamber.
- The district court denied a stay, finding Ray’s filing untimely and that he was not likely to succeed on the merits of his RLUIPA claim; it treated the chaplain waiver as mooting the Establishment Clause claim.
- The Eleventh Circuit granted an emergency stay, holding Ray is substantially likely to succeed on an Establishment Clause claim (and possibly RLUIPA) because Alabama’s policy appears to facially prefer Christianity and the state failed to show strict scrutiny justification or narrow tailoring.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alabama’s practice of placing only the Holman Christian chaplain in the execution chamber violates the Establishment Clause by preferring one denomination | Ray: policy facially prefers Christianity; he’s denied the same in-chamber pastoral access afforded Christian inmates | Alabama: policy serves compelling penological/security interests; only ADOC chaplain may be in chamber because of safety, training, and familiarity with execution protocol | Court: Substantial likelihood Ray will succeed on Establishment Clause; facial denominational preference triggers strict scrutiny and state failed to justify narrow tailoring or least restrictive means |
| Whether RLUIPA forbids excluding a Muslim cleric from the execution chamber | Ray: exclusion imposes substantial burden on religious exercise and RLUIPA requires strict scrutiny; less restrictive accommodations (screening/training imam) are plausible | Alabama: must exclude unvetted/non-ADOC personnel for security; waiver of chaplain eliminates some claims | Court: RLUIPA may apply and similarly requires the government to prove compelling interest and least restrictive means; state did not meet that burden on this record |
| Whether Ray’s timing (last-minute filing) bars equitable relief | Alabama: late filing creates strong presumption against stay; Ray had long been on death row and could have sued earlier | Ray: he first requested accommodation Jan 23 and was denied; ADOC policies were confidential and not previously disclosed | Court: timing excused — Ray filed promptly after denial; state produced no evidence Ray knew earlier; equities favor a stay |
| Whether state’s post-filing waiver of its chaplain moots the Establishment Clause claim | Alabama: waiving the chaplain moots the dispute | Ray: waiver does not cure denominational preference because only Christians would have in-chamber access by policy | Court: waiver does not moot claim; relief sought includes admission of imam and exclusion alone does not cure the constitutional injury |
Key Cases Cited
- Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982) (governmental denominational preference triggers strict scrutiny)
- Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) (Establishment Clause applies to states; government may not aid one religion over another)
- Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952) (government must remain neutral among sects while allowing some accommodations)
- Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656 (2004) (government bears burden to show lack of less-restrictive alternatives at preliminary-injunction stage)
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) (government must meet strict scrutiny for burdening religious exercise; burden on government at preliminary stage)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015) (RLUIPA requires courts to apply strict scrutiny and not give unquestioning deference to prison officials)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) (upholding broad protections for institutionalized persons’ religious exercise)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014) (broad definition of religious exercise and statutory construction in favor of protecting religious exercise)
- O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987) (deference owed to prison administrators on penological objectives)