MoFo Wins Kosher Food for Incarcerated Man

Morrison & Foerster LLP - MoFo+
Contact

Morrison & Foerster LLP - MoFo+

Virginia prison officials can no longer decide whether the food provided to an incarcerated person with religious dietary restrictions is “kosher enough” to meet that inmate’s religious beliefs, under a recent ruling by the Western District of Virginia. That determination instead must be based on the individual’s sincere religious beliefs.

In an important religious rights case, a Morrison & Foerster legal team secured a favorable outcome for pro bono client Bruce Estes, a Jewish man who is incarcerated in a Virginia state prison. The case analyzed whether a so-called common-fare menu for inmates with religious dietary restrictions is acceptable for someone with Mr. Estes’ religious beliefs, which require him to adhere to a kosher diet. Evidence in the case showed that the food for the common-fare menu was not always obtained from kosher sources, and its preparation was not supervised by a rabbi or otherwise consistent with the kosher requirements of Mr. Estes’ beliefs. Regardless, the state maintained that the common-fare menu was effectively “kosher enough” and refused to do more because of cost concerns.

On June 5, 2018, the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia determined that the Virginia Department of Corrections violated the Religious Land Use And Institutionalized Persons Act by failing to provide Mr. Estes with kosher food.

“This case outcome is particularly noteworthy,” said Morrison & Foerster litigation partner and lead counsel in the case, Joel Haims. “Unlike prior kosher food cases, the issue here was not whether the state has to provide kosher food but rather who gets to decide what is kosher and acceptable to someone with Mr. Estes’ sincerely held religious beliefs.”

“Ultimately, the court ruled that this determination must be made on the basis of the inmate’s sincere religious beliefs rather than the state’s view of what those beliefs require,” he added.

The court found that Virginia’s refusal to provide Mr. Estes with kosher food compliant with his beliefs was a substantial burden on his religious exercise, and that even if costs were a compelling governmental interest, the state had not met its burden of showing that the common-fare meal program is the least restrictive means of accommodating that interest.

The MoFo team representing Mr. Estes in the case included: Joel Haims, Steve Rappoport, Cynthia Akatugba, Francesca Cocuzza, Ben Smiley, and paralegals Liz Mardeusz and Lisa Harger.

[View source.]

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP - MoFo+ | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Morrison & Foerster LLP - MoFo+
Contact
more
less

Morrison & Foerster LLP - MoFo+ on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.