895 F.3d 180
2d Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff DeAndre Williams, a Nazarite Jew incarcerated in NY DOC, requires a grape-free, egg-free, vegetarian kosher diet and has a dairy intolerance; DOC accommodations have been inconsistent and often conflict with his religious requirements.
- DOC provided two menus (general confinement menu and Cold Alternative Diet), neither of which satisfied Williams’ religious restrictions; DOC permits medical food substitutions but generally denies religious substitutions.
- Williams filed suit under RLUIPA and the First Amendment seeking injunctive relief ordering DOC to provide a diet compliant with his faith; the district court granted summary judgment for DOC adopting the magistrate’s report.
- DOC’s summary judgment evidence consisted primarily of a declaration asserting that providing kosher vegetarian meals statewide would be financially and administratively infeasible; DOC later implemented a prepackaged kosher menu at some facilities, though not where Williams was housed.
- The Second Circuit held the district court erred post-Holt by accepting DOC’s generalized, conclusory showing; remanded for further factfinding on whether DOC demonstrated a compelling interest and least restrictive means particularized to Williams.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent injunctive relief under RLUIPA is available | Williams seeks injunctive relief (kosher diet); official-capacity suit remains viable despite commissioner’s retirement | DOC argued no effective defendant after retirement | Held: Official-capacity suit survives; successor substituted under Rule 25(d); injunctive relief available |
| Whether DOC showed a compelling governmental interest in denying Williams’ requested dietary accommodation | Williams: DOC must particularize and cannot rely on conclusory cost/administrative claims; existing medical accommodations show underinclusiveness | DOC: Compelling interest in cost-control and administrative efficiency; affidavit says kosher vegetarian menu not feasible statewide | Held: DOC failed to particularize its compelling-interest showing; conclusory affidavit insufficient, and underinclusiveness (medical exceptions, existing kosher program) undermines claimed interest |
| Whether DOC’s policy is the least restrictive means under RLUIPA | Williams proposed alternatives (kosher vegetarian line or prepackaged kosher meals, modified CAD, removing forbidden items from his tray) that are less burdensome | DOC: Providing religious accommodations would be administratively burdensome and invite numerous similar requests | Held: DOC did not prove that Williams’ alternatives were infeasible; underinclusiveness and available alternatives require factfinding; DOC failed least-restrictive-means burden |
| Effect of DOC’s later changes to kosher program on mootness and merits | Williams: Changes do not moot claim because new menu not available to him and still contains forbidden items | DOC: Program changes may moot or warrant remand for district court to consider new record | Held: Case not moot; Second Circuit proceeds to remand for further proceedings and factfinding rather than dismiss for mootness |
Key Cases Cited
- Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015) (RLUIPA requires particularized, fact-specific showing of compelling interest and least restrictive means)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (law’s underinclusiveness can undermine asserted compelling interests)
- Jova v. Smith, 582 F.3d 410 (2d Cir. 2009) (government must submit detailed evidence; remand where voluminous record absent)
- Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263 (2d Cir. 2006) (defendants must cite record evidence to support claimed penological interests)
- Redd v. Wright, 597 F.3d 532 (2d Cir. 2010) (RLUIPA burden-shifting framework explained)
- Knight v. Thompson, 797 F.3d 934 (11th Cir. 2015) (government may meet burden with specific evidence tying policy to security incidents)