Chicago Daily Law Bulletin
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, August 31, 2004: A federal judge has set a status conference next week to discuss possible remedies for an inmate who was denied a diet free of the meat and eggs his Hindu religion forbids him to consume, says this complex article. In a written opinion, U.S. District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer directed prison officials to arrange for inmate Shree M. Agrawal to participate in the September 7 conference by telephone. Pallmeyer ruled that prison officials violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) when they told Agrawal they would not provide him with a vegetarian diet based solely on his assertion that his religious beliefs required the special diet. Instead, Agrawal was told that he needed a letter from a member of the clergy verifying that he was a practitioner of Vaishnava Hinduism and detailing the diet required of its followers, Pallmeyer said. Pallmeyer said the RLUIPA bars the government–including government officials and persons acting under government authority–from imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by people confined in institutions.
Citing Thomas v. Review board of Indiana Employment Security Division, 450 U.S. 707 (1981), Pallmeyer said the protections of the free exercise clause applies “even if the plaintiff’s belief is not held by all adherents of a religious group.” This protection also applies even if the plaintiff’s belief “is purely personal,” Pallmeyer continued, citing Frazee v. Illinois Department of Employment Security, 489 U.S. 829 (1989). Under this line of cases, it does not matter whether Hindus other than Agrawal believe their religion bars them from eating meat and eggs, Pallmeyer said. “The court concludes that Plaintiff’s rights under RLUIPA flow from his sincerely held religious beliefs, not the label of Vaishnava Hinduism,” Pallmeyer wrote. Pallmeyer also concluded that requiring Agrawal to find a member of the clergy to vouch for the sincerity of those beliefs violated the RLUIPA.