Yellowbear v. Lampert, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1243

Background

Andrew Yellowbear, an enrolled Northern Arapaho inmate in protective custody, seeks access to his prison’s existing sweat lodge for religious ceremonies; prison denies any access.
Yellowbear alleges the denial violates RLUIPA and seeks prospective injunctive relief against prison officials under Ex parte Young; district court granted summary judgment to the prison.
The prison’s stated reasons: safety/fire hazards associated with sweat lodges, security concerns and costs from ferrying him (requiring facility lockdowns), and speculative slippery‑slope burdens if many specially housed inmates sought access.
Yellowbear submitted evidence that (1) his faith and use of the sweat lodge are sincere religious exercises, (2) protective‑custody inmates are routinely transported (with lockdowns) for other needs, and (3) alternatives (early ceremonies, a sweat lodge inside protective unit, weekend use) could lessen burdens.
On appeal the Tenth Circuit evaluated (de novo at summary judgment) whether Yellowbear showed a RLUIPA claim and whether the government met its burdens to demonstrate a compelling interest and least restrictive means.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Yellowbear show a protected "religious exercise" and a "substantial burden" under RLUIPA?	Yellowbear: sweat lodge use is a sincere, protected religious exercise and the prison’s blanket refusal prevents participation (substantial burden).	Prison: does not dispute sincerity or that sweat lodge is religious for many; focused on defense.	Held for Yellowbear: sincerity and substantial burden established at summary judgment (no genuine factual dispute).
Must the court assess the government’s "compelling interest" at a case‑specific level?	Yellowbear: government must justify burden in context of his particular circumstances.	Prison: invokes broad safety, cost, and administrative interests applicable to sweat lodges generally.	Held: analysis must be case‑specific; prison failed to carry its burden with record evidence.
Did the prison prove a compelling interest (safety, cost, security/lockdowns, slippery slope)?	Yellowbear: prison’s generalized/unsupported assertions are insufficient; underinclusiveness (other routine lockdowns) undermines claim.	Prison: safety/fire hazard, unduly burdensome marginal costs of lockdowns, and speculative flood of requests justify denial.	Held: prison failed to show a compelling interest as a matter of law—evidence is conclusory or absent; underinclusiveness and routine secular exceptions weaken its claim.
Did the prison meet RLUIPA’s least‑restrictive‑means requirement?	Yellowbear: proposed less restrictive alternatives (early ceremonies, in‑unit sweat lodge, weekend use) would address security/cost concerns.	Prison: generally rejected alternatives in briefing; asserted other options offered to inmate (e.g., transfer).	Held: prison failed to refute alternatives or show they are ineffective; therefore did not meet least‑restrictive‑means burden.

Key Cases Cited

Employment Div., Dep’t of Human Res. of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (establishes that neutral laws of general applicability need not satisfy strict scrutiny)
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (articulates compelling‑interest/least‑restrictive‑means scrutiny for burdens on religious exercise)
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (limits Congress’s enforcement power under Fourteenth Amendment affecting RFRA)
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (RFRA requires case‑specific scrutiny of governmental interests and exemptions)
Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (RLUIPA valid as applied to institutionally confined persons; courts owe due deference to prison administrators)
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (underinclusiveness can show a lack of compelling interest or religious discrimination)
Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n, 485 U.S. 439 (discusses burdens on religious practices and governmental interests)
Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Emp’t Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707 (courts must not adjudicate religious doctrine; give deference to claimant’s crafted religious lines)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (authorizes suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officials)
Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, 600 F.3d 1301 (10th Cir.) (explains categories of what constitutes a "substantial burden" under RLUIPA)
Werner v. McCotter, 49 F.3d 1476 (10th Cir.) (recognizes sweat lodge use as central to some Native American religions)