37 F.4th 810
2d Cir.2022Background
- Plaintiffs Rafiq Sabir and James Conyers, Muslim inmates at FCI Danbury, allege a sincerely held belief requiring five daily congregational prayers that must be performed with as many co-worshippers as present.
- FCI Danbury instituted a policy (2014) restricting group prayer of three or more inmates to the chapel; chapel access was often unavailable at prayer times.
- Officers warned Sabir and Conyers that praying in groups outside the chapel could result in discipline; both refrained from group prayer to avoid sanctions.
- Plaintiffs filed a suit under RFRA (and First Amendment claims), seeking damages against wardens Williams and Quay in their individual capacities; most equitable claims were mooted by transfers.
- The district court denied the wardens’ motion to dismiss the RFRA damages claims, holding qualified immunity was not available at the pleadings stage; the wardens appealed.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed: the complaint and attachments did not show the wardens relied on any compelling, narrowly tailored interest when enforcing the chapel-only rule, and RFRA rights were clearly established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether wardens are entitled to qualified immunity for enforcing the chapel-only group-prayer policy | Sabir/Conyers: enforcement substantially burdened their religious exercise and defendants offered no justification; thus qualified immunity is not available | Wardens: qualified immunity shields them because enforcement was objectively reasonable and justified by penological interests | Denied. At the pleadings stage, wardens cannot show they relied on any compelling, narrowly tailored interest; qualified immunity inappropriate. |
| Whether the chapel-only rule substantially burdened religious exercise under RFRA | Plaintiffs: policy forced them to choose between adherence to sincere beliefs and discipline, constituting a substantial burden | Wardens: alternative accommodations (praying in pairs, chapel access) negate a substantial burden | Held for plaintiffs. Forcing the choice to forgo group prayer or face discipline is a substantial burden; alternatives like pairs insufficient. |
| Whether defendants demonstrated a compelling governmental interest and least restrictive means | Plaintiffs: no specific interest or narrow tailoring alleged; comparable secular group activities were permitted, suggesting underinclusiveness | Wardens: asserted institutional order, supervision, space, security, and budget constraints (via later FBOP responses) justify the policy | Held for plaintiffs at this stage. Complaint/attachments do not show wardens pursued or relied on compelling, narrowly tailored interests; broad post hoc FBOP justifications are insufficient. |
| Whether the right not to be substantially burdened without justification was "clearly established" | Plaintiffs: case law (including Salahuddin) and RFRA made clear that officials cannot substantially burden inmates' religious exercise without justification | Wardens: argued prior rulings are too abstract to clearly establish law for qualified immunity | Held for plaintiffs. Preexisting law (Salahuddin and RFRA principles) gave reasonable officers fair warning that unjustified substantial burdens violate RFRA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263 (2d Cir. 2006) (prison officials not entitled to qualified immunity where they substantially burdened inmates' religious exercise without justification)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (2015) (forcing inmates to choose between religious practice and discipline constitutes a substantial burden)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) (RFRA imposes an "exceptionally demanding" requirement that the government show a compelling interest and least restrictive means)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) (exercise of religion includes assembling for worship and prisoners have protected rights to congregate for services)
- Williams v. Annucci, 895 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2018) (unexplained disparate treatment of analogous secular activities suggests less restrictive alternatives and undermines asserted penological interests)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two-step framework and discretion in prong sequencing)
- Salahuddin v. Coughlin, 993 F.2d 306 (2d Cir. 1993) (recognition that prisoners have a constitutional right to participate in congregate religious services)