Marshall v. Corbett, 3:13-cv-02961

Background

Kerry X. Marshall, an inmate at SCI–Rockview and adherent of the Nation of Islam (NOI), sued under RLUIPA challenging the DOC policy prohibiting non–flush religious headgear (the NOI fez) and seeking: permission to purchase/wear the fez, separate NOI services, and observance of NOI holidays.
The DOC policy (DC-ADM819) bans religious headgear that does not "fit flush to the head," which the DOC contends is necessary for security because non‑flush headgear can conceal contraband.
Magistrate Judge Schwab recommended granting a preliminary injunction limited to permitting the wearing/purchase of the NOI fez, and denying relief as to separate services and holiday observance; the state objected to the fez ruling.
District Judge Munley reviewed the R&R de novo on objections, applied RLUIPA and the Third Circuit preliminary‑injunction framework, and adopted the R&R in part.
The court held the fez ban substantially burdens Marshall's religious exercise, found the DOC had not shown the ban is the least restrictive means to further a compelling interest, and granted a preliminary injunction allowing Marshall to purchase and wear an NOI fez; the court denied injunctive relief for separate services and holiday observance.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the fez ban substantially burdens religious exercise under RLUIPA	Marshall: wearing the NOI fez is religiously required daily; inability to wear it prevents prayer/observance and thus is a substantial burden	DOC: inmate can still practice religion (pray, read Quran, attend Muslim gatherings, receive religious diet); no choice between benefits and faith	Court: Ban imposes a substantial burden—Marshall established sincere religious requirement and conflict with rule
Whether the DOC's safety/security justification is compelling and the ban is the least restrictive means	Marshall: less restrictive alternatives exist (search fezzes; past practice permitted fezzes with searches); partial allowances are insufficient if practice requires constant wear	DOC: ban is necessary because fezzes have more concealment space; searching increases inmate‑staff contact and safety risk; partial/limited allowances protect security	Court: Security is a compelling interest but DOC failed to show the ban is the least restrictive means; searches and other measures available; limiting wear to certain areas was inadequate given Marshall's claim of constant‑wear requirement
Whether preliminary‑injunction factors overall support relief and scope of relief (fez vs services/holidays)	Marshall: irreparable harm under RLUIPA/First Amendment; balance/public interest favor injunction	DOC: all injunction factors weigh against relief (security, administrative burden)	Court: Irreparable harm, balance of harms, and public interest favor granting a preliminary injunction to allow purchase/wearing of the NOI fez; denied injunction for separate NOI services and holiday observance (no objection to those R&R denials)

Key Cases Cited

Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (2015) (RLUIPA requires narrow, claimant‑specific least‑restrictive‑means inquiry)
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) (broad protection for religious liberty informs RLUIPA analysis)
Washington v. Klem, 497 F.3d 272 (3d Cir. 2007) (test for substantial burden under RLUIPA)
Ajala v. West, 106 F. Supp. 3d 976 (W.D. Wis. 2015) (holding that partial allowance of religious headgear may still impose a substantial burden when constant wear is required)
Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs, Miss., 697 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2012) (RLUIPA violations can cause irreparable injury)
Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (loss of First Amendment freedoms constitutes irreparable harm)
ADP, LLC v. Rafferty, 923 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 2019) (framework for preliminary injunction factors)
Hohe v. Casey, 868 F.2d 69 (3d Cir. 1989) (direct penalization of First Amendment rights is irreparable injury)