23 F.4th 1209
9th Cir.2022Background:
- Plaintiff Lausteveion Johnson is a devout Muslim who contends his faith requires anointing with scented, blessed oil before each of five daily prayers; his sincerity is undisputed.
- Nevada Department of Corrections Regulation 810.2 forbids personal possession of scented prayer oil in a cell; scented oil is available only for weekly group chapel services, so Johnson lacks access for 34 of 35 weekly prayers.
- Nevada allows inmates to keep many other scented products (unscented baby oil, soaps, deodorants, lotions) in cells.
- Johnson sued under RLUIPA seeking the ability to keep a small amount of scented oil in his cell; the district court found the regulation substantially burdened his religious exercise and was not the least restrictive means, and enjoined Nevada to allow up to 0.5 oz in cell.
- Nevada appealed; Ninth Circuit reviews legal conclusions de novo and affirms the injunction, holding Nevada failed to meet RLUIPA’s demanding least-restrictive-means test.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the regulation "implicates" religious exercise under RLUIPA | Johnson: banning personal scented oil prevents him from performing a specific, sincerely held anointing practice before each prayer | Nevada: use of scented oil is a preference, not a protected religious practice; plaintiff must show textual/oral historical support | Held: Regulation implicates religious exercise; RLUIPA forbids inquiry into centrality; sincerity suffices (Johnson met burden) |
| Whether the regulation "substantially burdens" religious exercise | Johnson: prohibition prevents compliance for 34/35 weekly prayers—a significant restriction on a specific practice | Nevada: access once weekly in chapel and ability to use unscented oil means no substantial burden | Held: Substantial burden—depriving the specific practice for 34 of 35 prayers is a "significantly great restriction"; availability of alternatives irrelevant |
| Whether Nevada showed a compelling interest and least restrictive means (RLUIPA defense) | Johnson: targeted accommodation (small, secured bottle administered/monitored) would meet security needs without burdening religion | Nevada: compelling prison security interests (preventing contraband masking, fire safety, etc.) justify the ban on personal scented oil | Held: Although prison security is compelling, Nevada failed to show the ban is the least restrictive means; evidence was not sufficiently detailed, underinclusive enforcement of other scented products undermined the ban |
| Mootness / procedural defenses | Johnson: policy is systemwide; transfer and regulation amendment do not moot his systemwide challenge | Nevada: transfer and amendment moot or procedurally flawed; district court allowed new theories at trial | Held: Not moot (systemwide policy); procedural objections rejected as forfeited or meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (U.S. 2015) (RLUIPA affords expansive protection; courts may not assess centrality of a practice; demanding least-restrictive-means test)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (U.S. 2005) (RLUIPA permits inquiry into sincerity but not centrality of beliefs)
- Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005) (definition of "substantial burden" and requirement for detailed evidence to meet least-restrictive-means)
- Greene v. Solano Cnty. Jail, 513 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2008) (regulation that prevents a particular facet of practice can be a substantial burden)
- Int'l Church of Foursquare Gospel v. City of San Leandro, 673 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (government action causing substantial delay, uncertainty, or expense can constitute a substantial burden)
- San Jose Christian Coll. v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2004) (defining "substantially great restriction or onus" for religious exercise)