Summary of facts: The plaintiff, an Arkansas state prisoner and devout Muslim, observes the month-long fast of Ramadan, which involves abstaining from food and water from sunrise to sunset. Previously when Ramadan-observing inmates were served their fast-breaking meal, the prison provided them with the dinner plus the equivalent of the lunch meal other inmates received that they had missed. Then, with no justification, prison officials began serving only the dinner portion to inmates breaking their fast. As a result, the state serves Muslim inmates only two-thirds of the meals that it serves non-fasting inmates. The inmate sued in federal district court, alleging that this policy violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The district court held that the policy does not violate RLUIPA because the inmate had not proven that he suffered from malnutrition. The inmate has now appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

RFI’s position: The district court erred in holding that RLUIPA’s substantial burden element requires an inmate to demonstrate symptoms of advanced malnutrition. Rather, the statute merely requires that a claimant demonstrate he was forced to choose between religious observance and receipt of a government benefit. In this case, there is no dispute that in order to practice his religion the inmate was forced to forgo one third of the food served to non-fasting inmates. Therefore, he suffered a substantial burden under RLUIPA.

Read the brief here.