James J. Kaufman v. Jeffrey Pugh, 733 F.3d 692

Kaufman challenged Stanley Correctional’s denial of an atheist umbrella group and related religious accommodations under the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses and RLUIPA.
The court previously held in Kaufman I that atheism is a protected belief and treated his proposed atheist group as religious, requiring a legitimate secular justification for any unequal treatment.
The district court granted summary judgment on Kaufman’s claims related to the atheist group, the knowledge ring emblem, and donated books, finding no substantial burden or RLUIPA violation and that Secular reasons sufficed for the policy.
The Stanley facility uses seven umbrella groups; inmates may indicate “other” religion but may not join unrecognized groups; Kaufman sought to form an atheist study group for discussion of religion and ethics.
Kaufman also sought to wear a “knowledge thought ring,” and to donate books; the ring was denied as not an approved emblem and not part of an umbrella group; book donations were disputed as improperly handled.
On appeal, the court vacated the summary judgment only as to the atheist group claim and remanded for further proceedings; other claims were affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Establishment Clause - legitimate secular justification	Kaufman argued for an atheist umbrella group; denial without legitimate secular justification favored religion	Prison policy treated groups within umbrella categories and justified denial on practical and security grounds	Remanded for additional fact-finding; no definitive ruling on the Establishment Clause issue at this stage.
RLUIPA and Free Exercise burden	Kaufman contends denial imposes substantial burden on atheist practice	No substantial burden shown; policy reasonably related to penological interests	Affirmed summary judgment for remaining claims; no RLUIPA/Free Exercise violation established.
Religious emblems and atheism	Ring emblem constitutes a religious symbol for atheism; denial burdens religious practice	Emblems tied to umbrella groups; unique, individualized symbols pose security risks	Affirmed; no substantial burden or Establishment Clause violation from emblem policy.
Donated books and religious exercise	Loss or non-display of donated books burdened atheistic practice	No evidence of intentional loss; not a substantial burden	Affirmed; no RLUIPA/Free Exercise violation.
Remand scope	Record insufficient to determine actual inmate interest in atheism group	Interest evidence limited; no need to create new group	Remand to allow factual development on inmate interest and secular justification.

Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2005) (atheism protected; atheist group treated as religious under First Amendment)
Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (Sup. Ct. 2005) (RLUIPA requires least restrictive means for substantial burdens)
Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1985) (right to choose religious faith or none; free conscience protection)
O’Lone v. Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (U.S. 1987) (substantial burden may be justified by penological interests)
Linnemeir v. Bd. of Trustees of Purdue Univ., 260 F.3d 757 (7th Cir. 2001) (Establishment Clause scrutiny for favoritism toward religion)
Metzl v. Leininger, 57 F.3d 618 (7th Cir. 1995) (Free Exercise protection for beliefs not tied to worship)
Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. City of Chicago, 342 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 2003) (religious freedoms and government neutrality within city policy)
Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (U.S.) (see above)