ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Religion & Law Blogs -> Religion Clause

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Religion & Law

: Religion Clause

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

By Howard M. Friedman

ADVERTISEMENTS
In Smith v. Ozmint, (4th Cir., July 31, 2009), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the South Carolina Department of Corrections had not justified under RLUIPA its policy of forcibly shaving the heads of maximum security inmates who wear long hair as a matter of religious belief. At the summary judgment stage, defendants had not shown that the policy furthers a compelling governmental interest in space utilization, hygiene, and security by the least restrictive means.

In Mayo v. Norris, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63515 (ED AR, June 26, 2009), an Arkansas federal magistrate judge recommended that an inmate be permitted to proceed against several state corrections officials. Plaintiff claims that defendants' enforcement of a Department of Corrections policy prohibiting the use of tobacco violates his free exercise rights.

In Perkins v. Booker, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64092 (WD MI, May 29, 2009), a Michigan federal magistrate judge recommended rejecting a summary judgment motion filed by two defendants in a prisoner's claim against them charging infringement of his Free Exercise rights and his rights under RLUIPA. At issue was whether plaintiff was properly removed from the prison's kosher food program.

In Brown v. Unfried, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64520 (SD IL, July 27, 2009), an Illinois federal district court refused to strike plaintiff's free exercise claim finding that allegations the Madison County Jail refused to accommodate plaintiff's observance of Ramadan are separate from a retaliation claim filed by plaintiff.

In Forde v. Zickefoose, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65616 (D CT, April 2, 2009), a Connecticut federal district court refused defendants' motions for summary judgment and permitted a woman federal prisoner who had converted to Islam to move ahead with her claims under RLUIPA and the First amendment. Plaintiff objected to prison policies that subject her to non-emergency pat-down searches by male guards, compel her to use an identification photo that shows her without her hijab, and which fail to provide a qualified imam for weekly jum'ah prayer services.

Religion News Service yesterday reported more broadly on the issues involved in prisoner access to religious materials.

Full post as published by Religion Clause on August 02, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0134 secs (new cache)