897 F. Supp. 2d 828
D.S.D.2012Background
- DOC tobacco policy at SD prisons; Native American inmates sửe tobacco in Lakota ceremonies via tobacco mixtures, tobacco ties, flags, and sweat lodge; Lakota leaders and inmates testified tobacco is essential to practice; 2009 ban on all tobacco challenged under RLUIPA; trial evidence included contemporaneous DOC documents and testimony from officials and Lakota traditional healers; court reviewed post-trial briefing and U.S. statement of interest; court found tobacco ban substantially burdened plaintiffs’ religious exercise; injunctive relief sought to restore pre-ban policy.
- Native American plaintiffs (NACT, Brings Plenty, Creek) allege RLUIPA violation; court initially granted partial summary judgment on some claims but denied others; matter proceeded to trial to address RLUIPA claim; relevant facts focus on tobacco’s role in Lakota religious practices and DOC’s rationale for the ban.
- Court considered the defendants’ contemporaneous and post-hoc rationalizations, the sincerity of beliefs, and the availability of less restrictive means before issuing injunctive relief.
- Court also considered the broader context of Lakota religious practice and interfaith differences (varied beliefs among healers and tribal leaders).
- Ultimately, the court held that the complete tobacco ban substantially burdened plaintiffs’ religious exercise under RLUIPA, found no compelling governmental interest or least-restrictive-means justification, and ordered narrowly tailored injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the tobacco ban substantially burdens Lakota religious exercise | Brings Plenty and Creek: tobacco essential to ceremony; ban burdens practice | DOC security concerns justify ban; reliance on medicine men; no substantial burden shown | Yes, substantial burden established |
| Whether the ban serves a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored | Ban lacks compelling interest; not the least restrictive means | Ban justified by security and tradition; relies on Has No Horses and other leaders | No compelling interest; not least restrictive |
| Whether there were less restrictive alternatives that could accommodate religious practice | Plaintiffs offered feasible alternatives (limited participants, outside supervision, reduced tobacco percent) | Defendants did not adequately consider alternatives before banning tobacco | Yes, less restrictive alternatives exist; ban not narrowly tailored |
| Whether injunctive relief restoring the pre-ban policy is appropriate under PLRA | Restore policy allowing 1/8 cup of 25% tobacco mix; narrowly tailored relief | PLRA requires narrowly tailored relief; security concerns persist | Court to fashion narrowly tailored injunction after meet-and-confer; not automatic restoration |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Wyhe v. Reisch, 581 F.3d 639 (8th Cir.2009) (substantial burden standard under RLUIPA; heightened scrutiny applied to religious exercise)
- Patel v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 515 F.3d 807 (8th Cir.2008) (threshold substantial burden requisite for RLUIPA claim)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (U.S. 2005) (RLUIPA framework; no requirement that belief be central to religion)
- Gladson v. Iowa Dep’t of Corrections, 551 F.3d 825 (8th Cir.2009) (sincerity of beliefs inquiry; protection for non-orthodox beliefs)
- Singson v. Norris, 553 F.3d 660 (8th Cir.2009) (contemplated in RLUIPA; substantial burden analysis)
- Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981) (interfaith differences; wide discretion for beliefs not central to orthodoxy)
- Grayson v. Schuler, 666 F.3d 450 (7th Cir.2012) (context matters; cannot determine orthodox practice for religion)
- Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir.2008) (RLUIPA requires heightened protection of religious exercise)
- Fowler v. Crawford, 534 F.3d 931 (8th Cir.2008) (consideration of alternatives; deference to prison officials' judgments)