Hyde v. Fisher
146 Idaho 782, 203 P.3d 712 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a prison regulation that substantially burdens an inmate's religious exercise is permissible only if it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. While inherent security dangers may justify a complete ban on some practices, a total prohibition on other practices is impermissible if less restrictive alternatives, such as supervised ceremonies in designated areas, can accommodate the religious exercise while still serving the state's security interests.
Facts:
- Steven Lee Hyde has been an inmate at the Idaho Maximum Security Institution (IMSI) since 1993, where he practices Native American religions.
- From 1992 until 1998, IMSI permitted Native American practitioners to conduct sweat lodge ceremonies.
- In 1998, the prison warden dismantled the sweat lodge after a group of practitioners were found roasting wieners over the ceremonial fire.
- Prison officials discovered that contraband, including marijuana, had been used or hidden in the sweat lodge area.
- From 1989 until 2002, the prison permitted smudging ceremonies, which involve the burning of herbs for purification.
- In 2002, IMSI prohibited smudging after interpreting its new general 'No-Tobacco' policy as a ban on the burning of any substance.
- IMSI prison officials also prohibited Hyde from possessing various religious items, including a ceremonial pipe, a tobacco-free herb called kinnikinnik, a choker, feathers, and other spiritually significant herbs and grasses.
Procedural Posture:
- Steven Lee Hyde filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in an Idaho district court against Warden Greg Fisher, alleging violations of his religious freedom under federal and state law.
- The district court initially dismissed Hyde's statutory claims under RLUIPA and FERPA for failure to post a security bond.
- Following a bench trial on Hyde's constitutional claims, the district court denied the petition, finding the prison's regulations were rationally related to legitimate penological interests.
- Hyde, the appellant, appealed to the Idaho Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the statutory claims and remanded the case to the district court for findings and conclusions on the RLUIPA and FERPA claims.
- On remand, the district court again ruled in favor of the prison, finding the regulations satisfied the compelling interest and least restrictive means tests.
- Hyde, the appellant, now appeals the district court's decision on all claims to the Idaho Court of Appeals for a second time.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a maximum-security prison's complete ban on sweat lodge ceremonies, smudging ceremonies, and the possession of certain religious items violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by imposing a substantial burden on an inmate's religious exercise that is not the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest?
Opinions:
Majority - Gutierrez, J.
Yes, in part, and no, in part. The prison's complete ban on sweat lodge ceremonies and its general restrictions on personal property are the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling interest in security, but its complete ban on smudging ceremonies is not and therefore violates RLUIPA. The court found that prison security is a compelling state interest, and deference is due to institutional officials' expertise. The ban on the sweat lodge was justified because the ceremony inherently involves serious safety risks in a maximum-security setting, including an enclosed, unobservable space and access to materials that could be used as weapons (poles, hot rocks, fire). Past abuses confirmed these risks, making a total ban the only viable option. Similarly, the personal property policy was a narrowly tailored means to control contraband, prevent weapon creation, and maintain order, while still providing a standard allowance for some religious items. However, the complete ban on smudging was not the least restrictive means. The prison's concerns about fire and smoke could be addressed by less restrictive alternatives, such as allowing the ceremony to be conducted outdoors under supervision and having staff, rather than inmates, retain the necessary materials. The prison failed to demonstrate that it had considered these alternatives, thus failing to carry its burden under RLUIPA for the smudging ban.
Analysis:
This case provides a detailed application of RLUIPA's strict scrutiny standard within the prison context, clarifying the balance between institutional security and inmates' religious freedom. The decision demonstrates that while courts afford 'due deference' to the security assessments of prison administrators, this deference is not a rubber stamp for any and all restrictions. The court's bifurcated holding establishes that a 'compelling interest' in security must be specifically linked to the prohibited practice, and a complete ban is only permissible when the practice's inherent nature makes less restrictive alternatives impossible. This ruling guides lower courts to conduct a fact-intensive inquiry into each specific religious practice at issue, requiring prisons to actively consider and justify the rejection of safer alternatives before imposing a total prohibition.
