Fifth Circuit Reinstates Baha’i Texas Prisoner’s Dietary Claim
On September 11, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated a summary judgment dismissing a prisoner’s claim that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) refused to provide him a diet that conformed to dietary requirements of his Baha’i religious beliefs and remanded for further proceedings.
Keith M. Cole, a prisoner incarcerated at TDCJ’s Stiles Unit, is a devout member of the Baha’i faith. His sincerely held religious beliefs, he claimed, included a requirement that he eat meat with every meal, but he may not eat pork. He filed a lawsuit against TDCJ, alleging that pork was served about every third lunch or supper but officials refused to provide him a non-pork meat alternative. Instead, by policy, TDCJ offered only a non-meat substitute for pork, such as a peanut butter or cheese sandwich, an extra scoop of beans, or a boiled egg.
Cole admitted that he was able to purchase non-pork meats from the prison commissary and alleged that he had spent hundreds of dollars doing so to remain compliant with his religious beliefs. However, he claimed that TDCJ’s continuing refusal to provide him food that did not violate his religious beliefs was in itself a violation of his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a).
Defendants moved for summary judgment, “asserting that TDCJ policy did not substantially burden Cole’s exercise of his religious beliefs because he could purchase non-pork meat from the commissary to supplement his meals.” In the alternative, Defendants argued “without evidentiary support,” the Court said, “that TDCJ’s meal-selection plan is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling interest in controlling the cost of food service.” Over Cole’s objections, the federal court for the Eastern District of Texas adopted the magistrate judge’s determination that the meal plan is the least restrictive means of controlling meal costs and dismissed the suit. Aided by Washington, D.C. attorneys Amaris Montes, Orin Nimni, and Samuel Weiss of Rights Behind Bars, Cole appealed.
Reviewing the summary judgment ruling de novo, the Fifth Circuit noted that the district court had not decided whether Cole’s religious exercise was substantially burdened. Instead, its decision rested solely on finding that the policy was the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest, pursuant to Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (2015). However, defendants had not submitted any evidence to support such a finding, the appellate Court noted.
In fact, Defendants’ counsel “conceded there was no evidence in the record to support the finding that TDCJ policy is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest in controlling costs” at oral argument and also “disclaimed any reliance on the compelling interest and least restrictive means prongs of RLUIPA.”
“Bare assertions of increased costs do not automatically satisfy the requirement of a compelling governmental interest,” the Court declared. The statute itself even noted that there might be additional costs to achieve compliance, in 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-3(c). Thus, the district court’s determination was erroneous.
The Court noted that the least-restrictive-means standard is exceptionally demanding, requiring the government to show that it lacks any other means of achieving its goal without substantially burdening the exercise of religion, as held in Burnwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014). In a similar case, Schlemm v. Wall, 784 F.3d 362 (7th Cir. 2015), defendants were not entitled to summary judgment. Likewise in this case, the lower court’s judgment was reversed and the case remanded. See: Cole v. Collier, 117 F.4th 326 (5th Cir. 2024).
Back at the district court, Cole’s appellate attorneys were recognized as his “counsel of record” and ordered to submit pro hac vice applications to represent him; however, no such application was docketed within the district court’s 14-day time frame. The case remains pending, and PLN will update developments as they are available. See: Cole v. Collier, USDC (E.D. Tex.), Case No. 1:20-cv-00015.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Cole v. Collier
| Year | 2024 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 117 F.4th 326 (5th Cir. 2024) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |