16 F.4th 170
6th Cir.2021Background
- In 2013 the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) replaced prior kosher meat/dairy holiday meals and outside-donation holiday foods with a universal vegan "religious" meal for prisoners who qualify for a religious diet. MDOC also bars bringing commissary food into the chow hall and bars vegan-diet prisoners from consuming non‑vegan chow-hall items.
- Plaintiffs Gerald Ackerman and Mark Shaykin (representing a class of Jewish MDOC prisoners) assert that their sincerely held Jewish beliefs require eating kosher meat and dairy as part of Sabbath and four holiday meals (Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, Shavuot), and that cheesecake is required on Shavuot.
- Prison commissary sells kosher snack-size meat/dairy items twice monthly, but prison policy prevents eating commissary purchases at mealtime; prisoners may earn small wages or receive deposits, and MDOC loans small amounts when accounts are low.
- At bench trial the district court found the plaintiffs sincerely held the challenged beliefs, concluded MDOC’s policies substantially burdened those practices under RLUIPA, and ordered MDOC to provide kosher meat and dairy (and cheesecake on Shavuot) in quantities comparable to other prisoners’ meals.
- MDOC estimated the accommodation would cost roughly $10,000 per year (out of a $39 million food budget) and argued the policies are justified by cost-control, administrative burdens, and slippery‑slope concerns; MDOC appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sincerity of belief (meat & dairy; cheesecake) | Ackerman & Shaykin sincerely believe meat/dairy are required at Sabbath/holidays and cheesecake on Shavuot; supported by upbringing, testimony, and rabbinic affidavit | MDOC: practices and commissary purchases show lack of sincerity; Code of Jewish Law’s “means” qualifier undermines claim | Court affirmed district court: factual sincerity finding not clearly erroneous for meat/dairy and cheesecake (cheesecake close but within discretion) |
| 2. Substantial burden under RLUIPA | Universal vegan policy + ban on eating commissary at meals and donor ban effectively bars meal‑based consumption of required foods, placing substantial pressure to violate beliefs | MDOC: commissary availability and ability to purchase means no state‑imposed substantial burden; costs are private choices | Court: MDOC imposes substantial burden because it bars the specific exercise (meat/dairy at mealtime); commissary option is a second‑best and irrelevant to the practice‑specific RLUIPA inquiry |
| 3. Compelling governmental interest (strict scrutiny) | Plaintiffs: MDOC has not shown a compelling interest that justifies barring meal‑based religious foods (minimal cost and limited scope of accommodation) | MDOC: interest in cost control, orderly meal administration, and avoiding cascading accommodations or Establishment Clause problems | Court: $10,000/year is not a compelling interest given $39M budget; MDOC failed to develop persuasive cost/administration/Establishment Clause justification |
| 4. Least restrictive means / alternatives | Plaintiffs: MDOC could provide modest kosher meat/dairy portions or allow limited donations/meal exceptions at little cost; milk already available | MDOC: alternatives infeasible or insecure (no evidence donors available; administrative/nutritional/space burdens) | Court: MDOC failed to show its policies are least‑restrictive; it neither justified bans (commissary-in-chow-hall rule) nor proved alternatives unworkable, so RLUIPA not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Cavin v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr., 927 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. 2019) (RLUIPA burden‑shifting framework; practice‑specific analysis)
- Fox v. Washington, 949 F.3d 270 (6th Cir. 2020) (clear‑error review of sincerity; RLUIPA exercise‑specific analysis)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (2015) (RLUIPA requires person‑specific strict scrutiny; courts must not substitute second‑best options)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) (deference to prison administrators; RLUIPA may nonetheless require government expenditures)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) (sincerity distinct from orthodoxy; burden‑shifting principles)
- Haight v. Thompson, 763 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2014) (barring access to practice is a substantial burden; purchasing offered food can be relevant when not barred at mealtime)
- Patel v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 515 F.3d 807 (8th Cir. 2008) (cost of purchasing religious food at commissary may render burden insubstantial depending on financial evidence)
- Moussazadeh v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just., 703 F.3d 781 (5th Cir. 2012) (inquiry into whether cost‑saving justifies burden; skepticism that minuscule budget savings are compelling)
- United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982) (compulsory participation in complex governmental programs can justify denial of religious exemptions when administration would be unworkable)