48 F.4th 836
7th Cir.2022Background
- Rufus West, a Muslim inmate at Green Bay Correctional Institution, objects to cross-sex strip searches because his faith forbids exposing his body to women who are not his wife.
- In July 2016 a routine post-visit strip search involved Corrections Officer Isaac Buhle, a transgender man; Buhle acted as the observing officer and West alleges Buhle saw him naked. West requested an exemption and prison officials denied it and warned of discipline for future refusal.
- West sued under RLUIPA seeking an injunction against cross-sex strip searches and brought a Fourth Amendment claim under § 1983; the district court dismissed the Fourth Amendment claim under then-controlling Seventh Circuit precedent and granted summary judgment to the prison on RLUIPA.
- On appeal the Seventh Circuit reversed: it held West’s RLUIPA claim established a substantial burden because the prison’s policy and disciplinary threats force him to choose between religious compliance and punishment.
- The court rejected the prison’s defenses that accommodating West would violate Title VII or the Equal Protection Clause, concluding an exemption is compatible with antidiscrimination law and sex-based accommodations can be a bona fide occupational qualification in this context.
- The court also held that Henry v. Hulett revived a limited Fourth Amendment bodily-privacy claim for prisoners and remanded that claim for further proceedings; it remanded for entry of appropriate injunctive relief on the RLUIPA claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prison’s cross-sex strip-search policy substantially burdens religious exercise under RLUIPA | West: disciplinary threats and policy force him to choose between faith and punishment, so burden is substantial | Prison: only one past incident in decades; future searches uncertain; on-the-spot exemptions possible | Held: Substantial burden proven—threat of discipline and policy impose present coercion similar to Holt |
| Whether denying an exemption is the least restrictive means to further Title VII compliance | West: exempting him from cross-sex searches won’t violate employees’ Title VII rights | Prison: exemption would violate transgender employees’ antidiscrimination rights under Title VII | Held: Prison failed to show exemption would cause an adverse Title VII action; Title VII and BFOQ principles allow sex-based accommodations here |
| Whether accommodating West would violate Equal Protection | West: sex-conditioned accommodation is permissible to protect inmate religious/privacy rights | Prison: accommodation would unlawfully differentiate among employees based on sex/transgender status | Held: Classification is sex-based and subject to intermediate scrutiny; accommodation is substantially related to important objectives and lawful |
| Whether cross-sex strip searches violate the Fourth Amendment right to bodily privacy | West: visual inspections by opposite-sex guards can violate bodily-privacy rights | Prison: under prior circuit precedent prisoners lack Fourth Amendment privacy in visual body inspections | Held: Henry revived a limited Fourth Amendment bodily-privacy right for prisoners; claim reinstated and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Henry v. Hulett, 969 F.3d 769 (7th Cir. 2020) (recognizing a limited Fourth Amendment right to bodily privacy for prisoners)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (2015) (RLUIPA substantial-burden and least-restrictive-means framework applied in prison context)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) (RFRA strict-scrutiny/compelling-interest standard)
- Canedy v. Boardman, 16 F.3d 183 (7th Cir. 1994) (distinguishing incidental cross‑sex viewings from intrusive cross‑sex searches and recognizing need for accommodation)
- Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) (holding that discrimination against transgender persons is discrimination because of sex under Title VII)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (reasonableness factors for Fourth Amendment searches in prisons)
- Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 566 U.S. 318 (2012) (strip searches of inmates for security are generally reasonable)