828 F.3d 1341
11th Cir.2016Background
- Florida DOC historically offered regular, meatless, and vegan diets; kosher meals were provided intermittently (2004–2007, pilot 2010–2013) and then stopped statewide until a 2013 religious-diet program was adopted.
- DOJ sued the Secretary in 2012 under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) alleging denial of kosher meals imposed a substantial burden on inmates who keep kosher.
- In 2013 the Secretary implemented Procedure 503.006 creating a certified-food kosher option and rules limiting admission/participation (sincerity questions, waiting period, ten-percent attendance rule, zero-tolerance for non-kosher consumption, anti-bartering); the certified menu is limited and served cold.
- The district court preliminarily enjoined some program rules in 2013; after procedural remands the district court granted summary judgment for the United States and entered a permanent injunction requiring kosher diets for inmates with sincere religious need and barring certain restrictive rules.
- On appeal the Secretary argued RLUIPA allows cost-based denial as the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest in cost containment; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the permanent injunction, finding the Secretary failed to prove a compelling interest or narrow tailoring.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RLUIPA requires DOC to provide kosher meals to inmates with sincere religious need | United States: Denial imposes a substantial burden and RLUIPA requires accommodation unless DOC proves a compelling interest and least restrictive means; kosher meals must be provided | Secretary: Denial is justified by compelling interest in containing costs and is the least restrictive means | Court: Affirmed for U.S.; Secretary failed to prove a compelling interest or narrow tailoring, so DOC must provide kosher meals |
| Whether DOC met burden to show cost containment is a compelling interest | U.S.: DOC’s cost evidence is speculative and insufficient | Sec’y: Program would impose high projected costs and strain budget/positions | Court: DOC’s evidence is inadequate; voluntary implementation and testimony that costs are sustainable undercut claim of a compelling interest |
| Whether denial is the least restrictive means | U.S.: Less restrictive alternatives exist (offerings in other systems; enforce program rules to exclude insincere applicants) | Sec’y: Statewide denial minimizes cost; enforcing rules is too time-intensive; fear of other inmates seeking accommodations | Court: DOC failed to show why other prisons’ accommodations or analogous diets wouldn’t work or why enforcement is infeasible; least-restrictive-means not established |
| Validity of program rules (sincerity testing, participation limits, zero-tolerance, anti-bartering) | U.S.: Several rules create unconstitutional/substantial burdens and are improperly applied | Sec’y: Rules legit for program integrity and cost control | Court: District court granted relief against ten-percent and zero-tolerance rules but upheld doctrinal sincerity testing and anti-bartering; on appeal DOC only challenged provision of kosher food and lost |
Key Cases Cited
- Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015) (RLUIPA least-restrictive-means and burden-scrutiny standards)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014) (scrutiny of asserted harms and exemptions in religious exercise contexts)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (laws that leave appreciable damage to a government interest undermine claim of a compelling interest)
- Moussazadeh v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 703 F.3d 781 (5th Cir. 2012) (explanation of kashrut requirements in prison context)
- Rich v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 716 F.3d 525 (11th Cir. 2013) (previous Eleventh Circuit decision finding Florida must justify denial given other accommodations)
- Knight v. Thompson, 797 F.3d 934 (11th Cir. 2015) (example of record sufficient to show compelling security interest)
- Patel v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 515 F.3d 807 (8th Cir. 2008) (BOP’s position on kosher diet versus other accommodations)
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) (rejecting broad "it will open floodgates" argument against religious accommodations)
- Fla. Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524 (1989) (limits on characterization of interests as compelling)
- Davila v. Gladden, 777 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 2015) (rejecting unsupported invocation of costs)