Muntaqim v. Lay, 575 S.W.3d 542

Malik Muntaqim, an ADC inmate and member of the Nation of Islam (NOI), sued ADC officials under the First Amendment and RLUIPA seeking a preliminary injunction to (1) prevent withholding issues of The Final Call and other NOI publications and (2) allow him to lead NOI religious services in prison.
Muntaqim previously appealed, and this Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing; the circuit court then held a hearing and denied the preliminary injunction, finding Muntaqim failed to show irreparable harm or likelihood of success on the merits.
ADC enforces a publications policy that bars incoming material that incites violence or contains inflammatory content and applies individualized review with a two-step appeal (warden then publications committee).
ADC enforces a religious-services policy requiring outside, credentialed volunteers to lead services (with a limited prisoner-led exception for Jumu'ah), citing security concerns and inability to locate NOI volunteers.
The circuit court analyzed only the First Amendment claims (Free Exercise) and declined to make findings under RLUIPA; Muntaqim did not preserve RLUIPA findings for appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of ADC publications policy (mail censorship)	Muntaqim: policy unlawfully withholds NOI materials; requests injunction forcing delivery of all NOI material	ADC: policy narrowly targets publications that incite violence or inflammatory group-based hostility; applies to all mail with individualized review and appeal	Denied — policy reasonably related to penological interests; court did not abuse discretion
Right to lead NOI religious services	Muntaqim: should be permitted to lead NOI services; refusal to attend orthodox Muslim services violates his religion	ADC: requires credentialed outside volunteers to ensure orthodoxy and protect safety; unable to find NOI volunteers; policy prevents dissemination of unorthodox/violent views	Denied — restrictions reasonably related to prison safety and order; no abuse of discretion
Irreparable harm standard for preliminary injunction	Muntaqim: withholding publications and prohibition to lead services cause irreparable harm	ADC: no irreparable harm shown; safety interests outweigh claimed harms	Circuit court found Muntaqim failed to prove irreparable harm; appellate court affirmed
RLUIPA claims preservation	Muntaqim: raised RLUIPA but sought no specific findings below	ADC: procedural posture insufficient to preserve RLUIPA for appeal	Appellate court declined to address RLUIPA because Muntaqim failed to request findings at trial

Drummond Citizens Ins. Co. v. Sergeant, 266 Ark. 611 (Ark. 1979) (preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy and factors to consider)
Smith v. Am. Trucking Ass'n, Inc., 300 Ark. 594 (Ark. 1990) (burden on movant to show both irreparable harm and likelihood of success)
O'Lone v. Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (U.S. 1987) (prisoners retain First Amendment protections subject to limitations for penological objectives)
Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (U.S. 1989) (prison may prohibit incoming publications detrimental to security or that facilitate criminal activity)
Murphy v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 372 F.3d 979 (8th Cir. 2004) (prison security is the paramount penological interest; group activities present heightened risks)
Baptist Health v. Murphy, 365 Ark. 115 (Ark. 2006) (appellate review of denial of preliminary injunction limited to abuse-of-discretion standard)