682 F.Supp.3d 559
S.D.W. Va2023Background
- Plaintiff Andrew Miller, an atheist incarcerated in West Virginia, alleges parole denials were based in part on his refusal to complete WVDCR’s Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program because it is "pervasively religious."
- RSAT relies heavily on AA/NA Twelve Steps and related materials (Lord’s Prayer, Serenity Prayer, references to “God,” daily devotionals); participants must attend many AA/NA meetings and demonstrate knowledge of the Twelve Steps to phase up.
- Miller repeatedly requested secular accommodations (CBISA, Thinking for a Change, Psi‑Med therapy, LifeRing, Humanist materials); WVDCR denied accommodation requests or provided only a single‑page Humanist alternative and promised but did not deliver a secular handbook.
- Parole panel decisions conditioned parole eligibility on RSAT completion; Miller filed grievances, then a § 1983 complaint asserting RLUIPA and First Amendment (Establishment, Free Exercise, Free Speech) claims and sought a preliminary injunction.
- The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, found Miller likely to succeed on the merits of his RLUIPA and First Amendment claims, and granted a preliminary injunction ordering RSAT removed from Miller’s Individual Reentry Program Plan (IRPP) and not to be considered in his parole eligibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RLUIPA: Does conditioning parole on RSAT substantially burden Miller’s religious exercise and, if so, can the state show the burden is the least restrictive means of a compelling interest? | Miller: RSAT’s compulsory religious elements coerce him to act against sincere atheistic beliefs; alternatives exist and are less restrictive. | WVDCR: RSAT is secular/spiritual (not religious); secular version/alternative exists; rehabilitation is compelling. | Court: Allegations show a substantial burden; defendants failed to show least restrictive means; RLUIPA claim survives. |
| Establishment Clause: Does conditioning parole on participation in RSAT coerce religious exercise? | Miller: State action coerces participation in religious activity (AA/NA/Twelve Steps) as a parole precondition. | WVDCR: Parole is discretionary; RSAT is not religious but spiritual; no coercion. | Court: Kerr coercion test met (state acted, coercion, object is religious); Establishment Clause claim survives. |
| Free Exercise (Turner): Is RSAT’s imposition on Miller reasonably related to legitimate penological interests? | Miller: No valid, specific link between RSAT’s religious elements and rehabilitation; ready secular alternatives and minimal burdens for accommodation. | WVDCR: Rehabilitation is a compelling/legitimate penological interest; spirituality is part of recovery. | Court: Applying Turner factors, found no valid rational connection and feasible, less‑restrictive alternatives; Free Exercise claim survives. |
| Free Speech: Did RSAT compel Miller to convey religious messages (compelled speech)? | Miller: Required to demonstrate knowledge, teach RSAT material, recite prayers and answer prompts about “God” — forced ideological speech. | WVDCR: Distributing materials or attending classes does not equate to compelled endorsement/speech. | Court: The record shows compelled, particularized messaging; Free Speech claim survives under Turner analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (2015) (RLUIPA burden‑shifting and definition of substantial burden)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) (discussion of substantial burden principle)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulations tested by reasonableness/Turner factors)
- Kerr v. Farrey, 95 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 1996) (three‑part coercion test for Establishment Clause claims in corrections)
- Inouye v. Kemna, 504 F.3d 705 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding governmentally compelled participation in twelve‑step programs violates Establishment Clause)
- Janny v. Gamez, 8 F.4th 883 (10th Cir. 2021) (twelve‑step coercion and Establishment Clause analysis)
- Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537 (8th Cir. 2014) (conditioning supervision/parole on AA/NA participation can be coercive)
- Stuart v. Camnitz, 774 F.3d 238 (4th Cir. 2014) (compelled speech test: intent to convey and likelihood of understanding)
- Warner v. Orange Cnty. Dep’t of Prob., 115 F.3d 1068 (2d Cir. 1996) (AA meetings described as religious; coercion analysis)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction legal standard)