A federal district court in Indiana has rejected the state's argument that the rising costs of kosher meals in prison justifies the abandonment of this religious accommodation. Under RLUIPA, the government must show a "compelling interest" to burden inmates' religious exercise in that way. Increased expense amid budgetary troubles, however, does not, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson wrote, qualify.
DOC… has cited absolutely no relevant authority to support the conclusion that spiraling cost alone is a compelling government interest.
…
Here, the DOC has only presented evidence of a budgetary shortfall… DOC argues that the mere fact that it will have to spend money to satisfy the religious needs of some prisoners is itself a compelling governmental interest. Insofar as the DOC asks that the Court find that a budgetary shortage alone can qualify as a compelling interest, the Court must reject that claim.
Furthermore, the idea that cost alone could provide a compelling government interest directly contravenes Seventh Circuit precedent. The Seventh Circuit has also noted that "orderly administration of a prison dietary system, and the accommodations made thereunder are legitimate concerns of prison officials . . . . The problem for the prison officials, however, is that no appellate court has ever found these to be compelling interests." Without offering any additional reasons for terminating kosher meals, the Court cannot find that the government had a compelling interest that might justify burdening the religious exercise of Plaintiffs.
The Associated Press report notes that an injunction hearing is set for November 30.
