Appeals Court affirms right of inmate under RLUIPA to possess scented oil for daily prayers
Via Religion Clause, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this week ruled in favor of a Nevada state prisoner seeking to use scented oils while praying in accordance with his religious beliefs. The court found that under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), the state’s prohibition on possessing scented oils in prison substantially burdens the religious exercise of Lausteveion Johnson, a devout Muslim who believes he must anoint himself with scented oil prior to each of his five daily prayers.
In its opinion, the appeals court flatly rejected troubling arguments of Nevada officials that Johnson had failed to adequately demonstrate the basis and significance of those beliefs:
On appeal, Nevada grossly misses the mark in arguing that its regulation doesn’t implicate Johnson’s “religious exercise.” Nevada contends that the use of scented oil for Johnson’s prayers is not really that important to his worship practice—it’s just a mere preference. What’s more, Nevada appears to argue that Johnson must point to textual support or oral history proving that the Prophet Mohammad used scented oil in prayer. These arguments flout RLUIPA’s plain text and our precedent, which prohibits courts from peering into the centrality of a religious practice or whether a particular practice is necessary to the religion. ..[I]t makes no difference that a religious belief is “idiosyncratic” or not “shared by all of the members of a religious sect.” If the belief is sincerely held, it falls within the protection of RLUIPA.
Nevada officials also argued that its need to maintain security necessitates the ban on scented oils, which they say keeps prisoners from using scents to disguise contraband. But the appeals panel, like the district court before it, disagreed, citing (among other things) the state’s willingness to allow prisoners to possess other scented products:
Nevada has not shown that banning Johnson from possessing scented oil in his cell, even a small half-ounce bottle as an accommodation, was the least restrictive means of serving its interest. As the district court found, although government witnesses testified that they believed the scent of the prayer oil was powerful enough to cover the smell of contraband, those witnesses did not present “detailed evidence” on the quantity needed to do so. . . .
Further, Nevada’s prison regulations as to other scented products undermines the State’s argument. It’s undisputed that Nevada prisoners may keep many scented products in their cells, such as Irish Spring soap, Tide detergent, Bounce dryer sheets, cocoa butter lotion, deodorants, and cosmetics like nail polish. And in the district court’s view, unchallenged on appeal, these products all have “strong scents” and are available to purchase in larger quantities than the half-ounce of scented oil sought by Johnson.
RLUIPA continues to provide robust protection for the religious liberty of inmates, in part by requiring prison officials to offer detailed justifications, rather than general assertions, in support of security regulations that substantially burden religious exercise. Supporting religious free exercise in prison is good for both religious liberty and for prison security. (Studies strongly suggest that inmates who are connected to their faith in prison are less likely to be violent or dangerous inmates.) Here, the appeals court affirmed the district court’s conclusion that Mr. Johnson is entitled to possess a half-ounce of scented oil in his cell to allow him to practice his faith in accordance with his beliefs.
For more on this topic, see BJC’s RLUIPA resource page here.
