Trapp v. Roden, 41 N.E.3d 1

Background

In 2003 Trapp and others settled a prior suit with the Massachusetts DOC; the settlement required DOC to build lodges (sweat/purification lodges) at SBCC and another facility and set protocols for their construction and use, with any security-driven alterations to be made in consultation with the Massachusetts Commission on Indian Affairs.
DOC built a lodge at Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center (SBCC) in 2004 but halted ceremonies within six months, citing staff and inmate health complaints from smoke entering the facility’s closed ventilation system.
In 2010 Trapp (confined at MCI‑Norfolk) and Ferreira (incarcerated at SBCC at the time of trial) sued, alleging violations of RLUIPA, art. 2 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, and breach of the 2003 settlement agreement; the trial was jury‑waived and focused in part on the SBCC lodge closure.
The trial judge found the DOC’s health evidence unpersuasive (witness testimony was hearsay or conclusory; a referenced report was not admitted) and found DOC failed to show that closing the lodge was the least restrictive means to address alleged health risks.
The trial court entered declarations for the plaintiffs under RLUIPA, the settlement contract, and art. 2; the DOC appealed. The SJC reviewed the RLUIPA and contract claims and affirmed judgment for the plaintiffs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether closure of SBCC lodge substantially burdens religious exercise under RLUIPA	Ferreira: closure of lodge prevents participation in Native American ceremonies protected by RLUIPA	DOC: alternatives at SBCC (smudging, pipe ceremonies, other practices and ceremonial items) mean no substantial burden	Held: closure does substantially burden religious exercise (Holt forecloses reliance on available alternatives)
Whether DOC met its burden to show closure furthers a compelling governmental interest	Plaintiffs: DOC produced only hearsay/conclusory evidence of health harms; interest speculative	DOC: closure necessary to protect health of asthmatic staff/inmates; ventilation made lodging infeasible	Held: DOC failed to prove an actual (non‑speculative) compelling interest; evidence was unpersuasive
Whether closure was the least restrictive means under RLUIPA	Plaintiffs: DOC did not consider/filter/relocate or otherwise reasonably accommodate; minimal efforts insufficient	DOC: tested three locations and could not find site that prevented smoke entry	Held: DOC did not show it considered and rejected workable, less restrictive alternatives; least restrictive means test not met
Whether DOC breached the 2003 settlement agreement by closing the SBCC lodge	Trapp: closure violates settlement terms requiring lodges and specified protocols and consultation before alterations	DOC: settlement allows changes for security/health concerns; closure justified by health/security	Held: DOC breached the settlement — (1) DOC failed to show valid health/security justification and (2) DOC did not consult the Massachusetts Commission on Indian Affairs as required

Key Cases Cited

Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (interpreting RLUIPA substantial‑burden inquiry; alternatives irrelevant to burden question)
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (discussing compelling interest and least restrictive means framework)
Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (RLUIPA protects institutionalized persons dependent on government accommodation)
Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (prison authorities cannot ignore conditions that are sure or very likely to cause serious illness)
Spratt v. Rhode Island Dep't of Corrections, 482 F.3d 33 (least restrictive means requires consideration and rejection of alternatives)
Yellowbear v. Lampert, 741 F.3d 48 (prison officials may not declare compelling interest by fiat)
Sparrow v. Demonico, 461 Mass. 322 (settlement agreement enforceable as contract)
Good v. Commissioner of Correction, 417 Mass. 329 (DOC obligation to provide safe conditions including sanitary water)