Yellowbear v. Lampert
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1243, 2014 WL 241981, 741 F.3d 48 (2014)
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's denial of a religious accommodation must be justified by more than conclusory or speculative assertions of security and cost concerns, especially when the prison grants exceptions for comparable secular activities.
Facts:
- Andrew Yellowbear, an inmate and enrolled member of the Northern Arapaho Tribe, holds sincere Native American religious beliefs.
- Yellowbear is housed in a special protective unit for his own safety, not due to any disciplinary infraction.
- The prison has an existing sweat lodge, which Yellowbear considers essential for religious purification ceremonies, located in the general prison yard.
- Prison officials completely deny Yellowbear access to the sweat lodge, citing the cost and administrative burden of providing security to transport him from the protective unit.
- The prison regularly conducts lockdowns to transport other specially-housed inmates (e.g., from geriatric and women's units) for secular reasons, such as medical appointments.
- Protective custody inmates, including Yellowbear, are also routinely seen by general population inmates during meal times.
Procedural Posture:
- Andrew Yellowbear sued prison officials in the U.S. District Court, seeking injunctive relief under RLUIPA.
- The district court (trial court) granted summary judgment in favor of the prison officials.
- Yellowbear, as the appellant, appealed the summary judgment ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
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 prison's policy of completely denying a specially-housed inmate access to a sweat lodge for a sincerely held religious exercise, based on generalized security and cost concerns, violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Gorsuch
Yes, the prison's policy violates RLUIPA. To succeed on a RLUIPA claim, an inmate must first show that a prison policy imposes a substantial burden on a sincerely held religious exercise. The burden then shifts to the government to prove the policy is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. Here, Yellowbear easily met his burden, as the prison's total ban on access to the sweat lodge is a substantial burden on his sincere religious exercise. The prison, however, failed to demonstrate a compelling interest at the summary judgment stage. Its arguments regarding the inherent dangers of sweat lodges were unsupported post-hoc rationalizations, its cost and security claims were conclusory and not quantified, and its 'slippery slope' argument was purely speculative. Furthermore, the prison's policy was significantly underinclusive, as it regularly conducted lockdowns for secular needs (like medical visits) but refused any for religious needs, undermining the claim that avoiding lockdowns was a compelling interest. Finally, the prison failed to prove its total ban was the least restrictive means, as it did not adequately refute Yellowbear’s proposed alternatives, such as holding ceremonies at different times or building a second lodge.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that RLUIPA's strict scrutiny standard has real force, even within the deferential prison context. It clarifies that prison administrators cannot defeat a RLUIPA claim on summary judgment with vague, unsubstantiated claims of security or cost. The court's focus on the underinclusiveness of the prison's policy—granting secular but not religious exemptions—provides a powerful tool for future plaintiffs to challenge the legitimacy of a prison's asserted compelling interest. The ruling signals to lower courts that they must demand concrete evidence from the government rather than accepting administrative convenience as a compelling interest by fiat.
