Native American Council, etc. v. Douglas Weber
750 F.3d 742
8th Cir.2014Background
- SDDOC progressively restricted tobacco in prisons (1998 smoking ban; 2000 chewing-tobacco ban) but historically allowed tobacco for Native American ceremonies; in 2009 it implemented a complete ban including ceremonial use.
- Plaintiffs: two Native American inmates (Brings Plenty and Creek) and the Native American Council of Tribes (NACT) sued under RLUIPA seeking injunctive relief to allow tobacco in Lakota religious ceremonies.
- Trial evidence: expert and inmate testimony established tobacco’s central religious role (pipe ceremonies, sweat lodges, tobacco ties/flags); testimony acknowledged that very low tobacco percentages (1–5%) could be acceptable in some ceremonies.
- SDDOC justified the ban by citing ongoing unauthorized tobacco abuse and alleged advice of spiritual leaders favoring removal of tobacco; SDDOC officials did not present detailed evidence that less restrictive measures were considered or tested.
- District court found a RLUIPA violation, enjoined the ban, and issued a remedial order allowing ceremonial tobacco subject to conditions (mixtures capped at 1% tobacco by volume, premixing, volunteer clearance, burning ties/flags, procedures for distribution, sanctions for abuse).
- Eighth Circuit affirmed: held plaintiffs proved a substantial burden and defendants failed to show the ban was the least restrictive means; remedial order complied with PLRA narrow-tailoring requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the tobacco ban substantially burdens religious exercise under RLUIPA | Tobacco is central to Lakota practices; ban meaningfully curtails ability to practice (prayer, pipe, sweat lodge) | Tobacco can be replaced by red willow bark; prior limits sufficed so no substantial burden | Held: Substantial burden proven—court will not judge centrality and accepts sincerity of belief |
| Whether the ban furthers a compelling governmental interest (prison security/order) | Plaintiffs: Security concerns can be addressed by less restrictive means | Defendants: Ban serves compelling interest in order/security and responds to tobacco abuse | Held: Court assumed interest but did not need to decide; defendants failed on least-restrictive-means burden |
| Whether the ban is the least restrictive means to protect security | Plaintiffs: Numerous alternatives (lower tobacco %, controlled distribution, premixing, surveillance, sanctions) are available | Defendants: Alternatives were considered and deemed ineffective or infeasible (testimony by Weber) | Held: Defendants failed to show they seriously considered or tested alternatives; 1% mixture and other measures are viable less restrictive means |
| Whether the district court’s remedial order violated PLRA narrow‑tailoring | Plaintiffs: Order narrowly remedies RLUIPA violation and balances safety | Defendants: Order is overbroad and not the least intrusive remedy under PLRA | Held: Remedial order is narrowly tailored, proportional to violation, and gives weight to safety concerns; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Singson v. Norris, 553 F.3d 660 (8th Cir.) (standard: factual findings for clear error, legal issues de novo)
- Fegans v. Norris, 537 F.3d 897 (8th Cir.) (prisoners retain First Amendment religious rights; RLUIPA context)
- Van Wyhe v. Reisch, 581 F.3d 639 (8th Cir.) (RLUIPA substantial-burden threshold and framework)
- Patel v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 515 F.3d 807 (8th Cir.) (definition of "substantial burden")
- Murphy v. Missouri Dep’t of Corrections, 506 F.3d 1111 (8th Cir.) (sincere, central beliefs prerequisite to burden claim under RLUIPA)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) (deference to prison administrators but RLUIPA protections upheld)
- Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680 (1989) (courts must not question centrality of religious beliefs)
- Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989 (9th Cir.) (government must consider and reject less restrictive measures to meet RLUIPA burden)
- Yellowbear v. Lampert, 741 F.3d 48 (10th Cir.) (RLUIPA enforcement and government burden on least restrictive means)
- Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011) (PLRA requires prospective relief be narrowly tailored and no further than necessary)