No. 13-955 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States RICKY KNIGHT, ET AL., Petitioners, v. LESLIE THOMPSON, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR ADVOCATES AGAINST DISCRIMINATION, SIKH ALLIANCE, AND SIKH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS BRIAN WOLFMAN (COUNSEL OF RECORD) INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION 600 New Jersey Avenue NW, Ste. 312 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 662-9535 [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae March 2014 i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... iii INTEREST OF AMICI.................................................1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................2 ARGUMENT ................................................................4 I. By relieving the government of its duty to show it used the least restrictive means to further its asserted interest, the Eleventh Circuit’s interpretation of RLUIPA flouts congressional intent. .........4 II. The Eleventh Circuit’s approach to strict scrutiny under RLUIPA will have broad, detrimental effects. ..........................9 A. Restrictions on the religious exercise of institutionalized people exist for all religious denominations and burden an array of religious practices. ................................................9 B. Because land-use regulation is discretionary and land-use disputes are complex, RLUIPA cannot protect religious land use without a robust least-restrictive-means test. ................16 ii C. The Eleventh Circuit’s “beside the point” analysis also would affect all federal government restrictions on religious exercise under RFRA. ...........20 CONCLUSION...........................................................23 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES American Life League, Inc. v. Reno, 47 F.3d 642 (4th Cir. 1995).............................22 Anselmo v. County of Shasta, 873 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (E.D. Cal. 2012) ..... 19-20 Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656 (2004) .........................................21 Bethel World Outreach Ministries v. Montgom- ery County Council, 706 F.3d 548 (4th Cir. 2013).............................7 Church of Holy Light of the Queen v. Mukasey, 615 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D. Or. 2009), va- cated on other grounds but aff’d in rele- vant part by Church of Holy Light of Queen v. Holder, 443 F. App’x 302 (9th Cir. 2011).....................21 City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) .................................5, 6, 23 Cottonwood Christian Center v. Cypress Rede- velopment Agency, 218 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (C.D. Cal. 2002) ............................. 16-17, 19, 20 iv Couch v. Jabe, 679 F.3d 197 (4th Cir. 2012).............................2 Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) ................................. 5, 9-10 EEOC v. Catholic University of America, 83 F.3d 455 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ...........................22 Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith 494 U.S. 872 (1990) ....................................... 5-6 Forde v. Baird, 720 F. Supp. 2d 170 (D. Conn. 2010)........21, 22 Fortress Bible Church v. Feiner, 694 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 2012) ............................20 Gilardi v. U.S. Department of Health & Hu- man Services, 733 F.3d 1208 (D.C. Cir. 2013) .......................22 Gonzales v. O Centro Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) ...............................4, 20, 21 Greene v. Solano County Jail, 513 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2008).....................10, 11 Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174 (4th Cir. 2006)...........................11 v Miles v. Moore, 450 F. App’x 318 (4th Cir. 2011).....................11 Mintz v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Spring- field, 424 F. Supp. 2d 309 (D. Mass. 2006)..............19 Mockaitis v. Harcleroad, 104 F.3d 1522 (9th Cir. 1997).........................10 Moussazadeh v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 703 F.3d 781 (5th Cir. 2012)...........................14 Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Service, 479 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2007), vacated on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 535 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2008)................................22 Newby v. Quarterman, 325 F. App’x 345 (5th Cir. 2009).....................12 Pugh v. Goord, 571 F. Supp. 2d 477 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)..............12 Reaching Hearts International, Inc. v. Prince George’s County, 584 F. Supp. 2d 766 (D. Md. 2008)...........18, 19 Roberts v. Klein, 770 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (D. Nev. 2011)........14, 15 vi Sasnett v. Sullivan, 197 F.3d 290 (7th Cir. 1999)...........................10 Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) .......................................6, 7 Sokolsky v. Voss, 2009 WL 2230871 (E.D. Cal. July 24, 2009).................................................................15 Thompson v. Smeal, 513 F. App’x 170 (3d Cir. 2013) ................13, 14 Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) .......................................3, 15 United States v. Holmes, 2007 WL 529830 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2007).................................................................22 Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005)...................2, 7, 11 Westchester Day School v. Village of Mar- maroneck, 417 F. Supp. 2d 477 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)........17, 18 STATUTES 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(a) ..................................................6 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(b)(1) ..........................................6, 7 vii 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1....................................................4 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq..............................................2 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc .....................................................16 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a) ...................................................5 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1).............................................16 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1)(A)..........................................5 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1)(B)......................................5, 7 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a) ..........................................5, 16 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a)(1)........................................3, 5 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a)(2)....................................3, 5, 7 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(2) ................................................7 LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS 146 Cong. Rec. E1563-01 (daily ed. Sept. 22, 2000) (statement of Rep. Canady) ....................5 146 Cong. Rec. S7774 (daily ed. July 27, 2000) (joint statement of Sen. Hatch and Sen. Kennedy)......................................................6, 16 146 Cong. Rec. S7778 (daily ed. July 27, 2000) viii (statement of Sen. Kennedy) ............................6 146 Cong. Rec. S7778 (daily ed. July 27, 2000) (statement of Sen. Reid)............................ 2-3, 4 MISCELLANEOUS Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Plaintiffs-Appellants, Knight v. Thompson, No. 12-11926 (11th Cir.) .................................13 Dawinder S. Sidhu, Religious Freedom and Inmate Grooming Standards, 66 U. Miami L. Rev. 923 (2012)........................8 U.S. Department of Justice, Report on the Tenth An- niversary of the Religious Land Use and Insti- tutionalized Persons Act (Sept. 22, 2010), available at http://www.justice.gov/crt/ rluipa_report_092210.pdf ....................... 4-5, 15 1 INTEREST OF AMICI1 Amici are the International Center for Advocates Against Discrimination, which empowers women and minorities to address structural discrimination in their legal systems; the Sikh Alliance, which cham- pions the Sikh principle of global justice with pro bono representation in human-rights cases; and the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF), which empowers Sikh Americans by building dialogue, promoting civic and political par- ticipation, and upholding social justice and religious freedom for all Americans. These human-rights advocacy organizations sub- mit this brief out of concern for the grave threat to religious liberty posed by the Eleventh Circuit’s dilu- tion of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act’s strict-scrutiny standard. Moreover, the Sikh Alliance and SALDEF represent the Sikh com- Bmunityecause. the religious beliefs of Sikhs, like those of petitioners, dictate that followers maintain unshorn hair, and because some Sikh inmates have had their religious beliefs violated by grooming poli- cies similar to the one upheld by the Eleventh Circuit below, the Sikh community’s particular concern for religious liberty is implicated here. 1 No person other than amici or their counsel authored this brief or provided financial support for it. All counsel for the par- ties received timely notice of this brief and consented to it via email. 2 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Amici recognize that the Court recently granted review in Holt v. Hobbs, No. 13-6827 (pet. for cert. granted Mar. 3, 2014), which, as indicated in the petition here (at 31-32), presents similar issues regarding the application of RLIUPA’s least- restrictive-means test. Although we believe that the Eleventh Circuit’s decision below presents an ideal vehicle for plenary review now, see Pet. 32, at a minimum, the Court should hold the petition pend- ing the disposition in Holt. * * * In a decision unmoored from the relevant statu- tory text and purpose, the Eleventh Circuit split with seven other circuits by holding that to satisfy its burden under the “least-restrictive-means” prong of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Per- sons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C.