Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Person Act (RLUIPA); Action for a declaratory judgment to recognize the “Christian Identity” religion in the Michigan prison system; Applicability of the “compelling interest test” to each plaintiff who claimed their free-exercise rights were being denied; Ramirez v Collier; Whether the government established there were no “less restrictive means” to ensure facility security; Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC)

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] The court held that the MDOC violated RLUIPA by not recognizing “Christian Identity” as a religion in Michigan prisons where it failed to satisfy its burden of showing that its denial of recognition was the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. Thus, it reversed the district court and remanded for entry of a judgment for plaintiffs-prisoners in this declaratory judgment action. The MDOC refused plaintiffs’ request to recognize Christian Identity, an “explicitly racist” white-supremacist ideology, as a religion. Plaintiffs brought this action under the RLUIPA, asking that the MDOC be required to do so. The court previously held that plaintiffs had satisfied the first two parts of the RLUIPA test, but remanded for the district court to determine the third part—whether the MDOC’s “refusal to recognize Christian Identity as a religion furthered a compelling governmental interest, and, if so, that its denial was the least restrictive means of furthering such a compelling interest.” Applying strict scrutiny analysis, the district court concluded that the MDOC had met its burden, ruling that the MDOC’s “recognition of Christian Identity as a religion would likely threaten the safety and security of” its facilities. The court focused on whether the district court correctly ruled the MDOC satisfied its burden of showing that “its denial of recognition was the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.” The court explained that the government was required to apply the compelling-interest test to each claimant who asserts that their free-exercise rights are being denied. “Under RLUIPA, ‘the government cannot discharge [its] burden by pointing to broadly formulated interests.’” It noted that the MDOC was required to show there were no “less restrictive means” by which it could protect its facilities. “Alternatives, other than to simply accept or reject recognition, were available and included in the Department’s policies, but never considered by it.” No evidence was presented that the individual plaintiffs were violent, and the court could not connect any “racial violence outside the prison setting” linked to Christian Identity with violence in the prison setting. The court rejected the government’s argument that “Christian Identity is simply too dangerous to recognize[,]” and that to do so “would lead to an increase in racial tension in its facilities because it cannot prevent nonwhites from attending Christian Identity services.” It noted that the MDOC already had a policy in place to mitigate this concern.