Inmate DeWitt Lamar Long, a practicing Muslim, is imprisoned at a correctional facility. Long was transferred to a high-security prison due to repeated conflicts with a Sergeant regarding meals that did not accommodate Long’s religious requirements. Soon after he was transferred, Ramadan began. During Ramadan, Long fasted throughout the day and could not break the fast until sundown, at approximately 7:30pm. Long’s evening meals were delivered to him each day at approximately 3:30pm. By the time Long could eat, the food was cold, congealed, and unsafe under prison food-safety guidelines. Long was sometimes unable to eat the meal at all.
Among other claims, Long filed a lawsuit that alleged that the timing of the delivery of his meal during Ramadan violated his First Amendment protections on the free exercise of religion. The district court granted the prison officials’ motion for summary judgment on Long’s free exercise claim, on the grounds that food “served cold, while unpleasant, does not amount to a constitutional deprivation.” Long appealed.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. As a preliminary matter, the Court noted that the basis for the district court’s ruling was an Eighth Amendment case, and was not controlling on Long’s First Amendment claim. The Court then determined whether the timing of the meal delivery substantially burdened Long’s free exercise of his religion. A substantial burden exists when the state places “substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.” A prison practice may impact religious exercise indirectly by encouraging an inmate to do that which he is religiously prohibited or discouraged from doing. Courts have consistently held that the failure to provide food consistent with a prisoner’s sincerely held religious beliefs meets the substantial burden standard.
The Court took judicial notice of the fact that some food is not safe to eat if it has been sitting at room temperature for hours. The timing of the meal delivery substantially burdened Long’s free exercise of religion. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for further review.
Long v. Sugai, 91 F.4th 1331 (9th Cir. 2024).