FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICKY K. INOUYE, 

Plaintiff,

and

ZENN K. INOUYE, Personal

Representative of the Estate of

No. 06-15474 Ricky Kenichi Inouye, aka Ricky

K. Inouye, deceased, D.C. No.  Plaintiff-Appellant, CV-04-00026-DAE

v. OPINION

MICHAEL KEMNA; LUCIANNE

KHALAF; DANIEL H. SHIMIZU; PETER

B. CARLISLE; CITY AND COUNTY OF

HONOLULU; MARK NANAMORI,

Defendants-Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

David A. Ezra, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

June 5, 2007—Honolulu, Hawaii

Filed September 7, 2007

Before: David R. Thompson, Marsha S. Berzon, and

Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Berzon;

Concurrence by Judge Tallman

11877
COUNSEL

Walter R. Schoettle, Walter R. Schoettle, a Law Corporation,

Honolulu, Hawaii, for plaintiff Ricky K. Inouye and Plaintiff-Appellant Zenn K. Inouye. Mr. Schoettle presented oral

argument.

Carrie K.S. Okinaga and Marie Gavigan, Corporation Counsel

for the City and County of Honolulu, and Moona A. Yost,

Deputy Corporations Counsel, Honolulu, Hawaii, for Defendants-Appellees Michael Kemna and the City and County of

Honolulu. Ms. Gavigan presented oral argument.

Mark. J. Bennett, Attorney General of the State of Hawaii,

and Kendall J. Moser, Deputy Attorney General, Honolulu,

Hawaii, for Defendant-Appellee Mark Nanamori. Mr. Moser

presented oral argument. 

OPINION

BERZON, Circuit Judge: 

Ricky K. Inouye alleges violations of his First Amendment

rights by his parole officer. He filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action, now carried forward by his son, Zenn K. Inouye

(“Zenn”), the personal representative of Inouye’s estate.1

Inouye charges that Mark Nanamori, his parole officer, vio1We refer to both the original plaintiff and the present appellant as “Inouye” throughout this opinion, even though Ricky Inouye is now

deceased. 

11880 INOUYE v. KEMNA
lated the Establishment Clause by requiring Inouye to attend

Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous (“AA/NA”)

meetings as a condition of his parole. The District Court of

Hawaii granted summary judgment against Inouye. We now

reverse the district court on this claim and remand for further

proceedings.2

I. BACKGROUND

Inouye, who had a methamphetamine addiction and had

been sentenced for drug crimes, was released on parole on

November 20, 2000. The events of that parole term form the

background for this case. 

A.

Inouye had long objected to compelled participation in

religion-based drug treatment programs. In June of 2000,

while imprisoned, he filed suit against state officials over his

placement in such treatment programs in prison.3

2

Inouye also appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment

against him on a Fourth Amendment claim related to a separate incident.

We address this portion of his appeal in a memorandum disposition filed

concurrently with this opinion. 

3The prison case, Inouye v. Cayetano, Civ. No. 00-00412, began with

a complaint filed on June 13, 2000. Nanamori was added to the prison

case in the third amended complaint, filed June 8, 2001, which included

the First Amendment issues arising from the parole term incidents now

before us. Judge Mollway initially held that Nanamori was not entitled to

qualified immunity. Inouye moved to dismiss him from the case soon

thereafter, and Nanamori was dismissed. The case was ultimately settled

and dismissed on August 12, 2002. Because there was no final judgment

on the merits in the case, it has no issue preclusion effects here. See Reyn’s

Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 (9th Cir. 2006)

(requiring that proceeding “ended with a final judgment on the merits” for

collateral estoppel to apply). 

For the purposes of collateral estoppel, we “give [ ] to a state-court

judgment the same preclusive effect as would be given that judgment

INOUYE v. KEMNA 11881
Inouye then took steps to avoid religion-based drug treatment programs on parole. Just before his release, on November 9, 2000, his attorney sent a letter to the Hawaii Paroling

Authority, expressing Inouye’s opposition to being placed in

a religion-based narcotics treatment program as a condition of

his parole. The letter read, in pertinent part: 

Mr. Inouye is a Buddhist. As such, he objects on

grounds of the Establishment and Free Exercise

Clauses of the First Amendment of the United States

Constitution to any state imposed religious practice

as a condition of his parole. Enclosed is a copy of the

decision in Kerr v. Farrey, 95 F.3d 472 (7th Cir.

1996), which holds that the Alcoholics Anonymous

12 step program cannot be imposed by the state as

a requirement for eligibility for parole. Mr. Inouye

does not object to participating in a substance abuse

treatment program. However, he does object to any

program that has explicit religious content. This

includes, but is not limited to, the recitation of

prayers at meetings, whether or not Mr. Inouye is

required to participate in the prayer. Please assure

that there is no religious content in any substance

abuse program that is imposed as a requirement of

Mr. Inouye’s parole. 

under the law of the State in which the judgment was rendered.” Skoog v.

County of Clackamas, 469 F.3d 1221, 1230 (9th Cir. 2006). In Hawaii, a

“final judgment on the merits” is required for collateral estoppel. Malahoff

v. Saito, 140 P.3d 401, 414 n. 16 (Haw. 2006). Although a consent judgment may sometimes count as the final judgment required for claim preclusion, 18 A WRIGHT AND MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE

§ 4443, see also Providence Health Plan v. McDowell, 385 F.3d 1168,

1174 (9th Cir. 2004) (providing standards for claim preclusion), it could

not do so in this case because Nanamori and the claims against him had

been dropped from the suit before the settlement. In any event, both claim

and issue preclusion are affirmative defenses, Rivet v. Regions Bank of

Louisiana, 522 U.S. 470, 476 (1998), and have not been pleaded here. 

11882 INOUYE v. KEMNA
Nanamori declared that he was familiar with the contents of

Inouye’s Hawaii Paroling Authority file. When Inouye was

released just over a week after the letter was mailed, Nanamori was appointed as his parole officer. Inouye’s conditions of

parole gave Nanamori the authority to order him into a drug

treatment program. The conditions emphasized that “[f]ailure

to participate in your treatment and abide by the rules of the

program may be considered evidence that you are refusing to

participate in the program.” Nanamori did not immediately

order Inouye into treatment. 

Inouye was arrested for trespassing on March 4, 2001 and

tested positive for drug use the next day. At that point,

Nanamori ordered him to attend the Salvation Army’s Addiction Treatment Services program.4

 The program requires participation in AA/NA meetings, which are rooted, the parties

agree, in a regard for a “higher power.” 

Inouye remained in the program for a few months, but he

refused to participate and was terminated from it on June 5,

2001. In part due to Inouye’s refusal to participate in the treatment program, Nanamori issued a warrant for Inouye’s arrest

for parole violations on June 15, 2001, and recommended that

his parole be revoked. Inouye’s parole was revoked after a

hearing on November 7, 2001. 

Inouye alleges that his placement in the AA/NA program,

and his termination from parole for refusing to participate in

the program, violated his First Amendment rights. 

4Nanamori stated in a declaration that Inouye would have been placed

in a different program had he objected to the Salvation Army program.

The declaration does not mention the pre-release letter from Inouye’s lawyer objecting to religion-based substance abuse programs. In his parole

report, Nanamori stated that he “ordered” Inouye to return to the program

after Inouye initially “gave [program workers] a hard time and insinuated

that he would file suit against them.” 

INOUYE v. KEMNA 11883
B.

Two years after these events, on June 6, 2003, Inouye filed

suit in state court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Nanamori,

among others. On January 16, 2004, the case was removed to

federal court. 

Nanamori moved for summary judgment. On March 18,

2005, the district court granted Nanamori’s motion, holding

that he had violated Inouye’s First Amendment rights, but had

qualified immunity from suit. 

During the course of these proceedings, Inouye passed

away. His son, Zenn, was named special administrator of

Inouye’s estate for a six-month term on September 20, 2004

and was substituted as a party on September 29, 2004. Zenn’s

term expired on March 20, 2005. He was reappointed as personal representative of his father’s estate for a three-year term

on September 21, 2006.5 Zenn filed a timely notice of appeal

on March 6, 2006. 

5

In the period between Zenn’s initial term and his second appointment,

the defendants in Inouye’s Fourth Amendment cause of action filed a

motion to dismiss the appeal in this Court. The ground was that we lack

jurisdiction because when Zenn filed his Notice of Appeal his term as special administrator had expired, and he had not yet been appointed as personal representative of the estate. As a result, they maintained, Zenn

lacked standing. 

The motion turns, all parties agree, on the application of Hawaiian probate law. Special administrators are a sub-class of personal representatives, appointed “when necessary to protect the estate . . . prior to the

appointment of a general personal representative.” HAW. REV. STAT.

§ 560:3-614 (2006) see also HAW. REV. STAT. § 560:1-201 (2006) (defining personal representatives to include special administrators). Personal

representatives, more generally, are the parties appointed, sometimes

indefinitely, to manage the affairs of an estate. HAW. REV. STAT. § 560:1-

201. 

Hawaiian law supports Zenn’s standing and our jurisdiction. As special

administrator, Zenn was required to “collect and manage . . . preserve . . .

11884 INOUYE v. KEMNA
II. ANALYSIS

This case comes to us on a grant of summary judgment, so

our review is de novo, Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485

F.3d 463, 470 (9th Cir. 2007), and we must make all inferences of fact in favor of the nonmoving party, Inouye. Id.

Doing so, we assume that Inouye’s participation the AA/NA

program was a compulsory condition of parole. Inouye had

objected in advance of parole to such a program but was

assigned to participate in one anyway, and was also “ordered”

to continue in the program after threatening to sue program

officials. There is no evidence that Inouye was ever told that

he had a choice of programs. Under these circumstances, a

jury could infer that participation was coerced rather than voluntary. We therefore proceed on that premise.

Nanamori does not argue that ordering Inouye to participate

in a religion-based drug treatment program was constitutional.

Instead, his defense, accepted by the district court, is that the

law on the matter was not clearly established at the time he

supervised Inouye’s parole and that he, therefore, is immune

from suit. We hold, on the contrary, that the law was and is

very clear, precluding qualified immunity, and on that ground

reverse the district court. 

[and] account therefor” the assets of Inouye’s estate and had “the power

of a personal representative” to do so. HAW. REV. STAT. § 560:3-616

(2006). When his term as special administrator ended, he therefore was

bound by HAW. REV. STAT. § 560:3-608 (2006), which specifies that a terminated personal representative may “perform acts necessary to protect

the estate and may deliver the assets to a successor representative” and has

a “duty to preserve assets subject to [his] control.” Id. Zenn’s actions in

the interim period were those necessary to preserve this appeal, which,

surely, is an asset of Inouye’s estate. Because he had the legal authority

and obligation to file the notice of appeal, he had standing even during that

period. The motion to dismiss is therefore denied, and the caption of this

case is amended to reflect Zenn’s present status. 

INOUYE v. KEMNA 11885
Qualified immunity from civil suit is available to government officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as

their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). We

examine a qualified immunity defense with a two-step test:

First, we determine whether “[t]aken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury . . . the facts alleged show

the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right.” Saucier

v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201. If a constitutional violation is

present, we go on to ask “whether the right was clearly established,” id., applying an objective but fact-specific inquiry. Id.

at 202. To reject a defense of qualified immunity, we must

find that “the contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that

a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing

violates the right.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202; Anderson v.

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987). In making this determination, we consider the state of the law at the time of the

alleged violation. See Blankenhorn, 485 F.3d at 476; Sorrels

v. McKee, 290 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2002). We also examine the “information possessed” by the officer to determine

whether a reasonable official in a particular factual situation

should have been on notice that his or her conduct was illegal.

Anderson, 483 U.S. at 641; Sorrels, 290 F.3d at 970. The

“subjective beliefs” of the actual officer are, of course, “irrelevant.” Anderson, 483 U.S. at 641.6

6

Skoog v. County of Clackamas, 469 F.3d 1221, 1229 (9th Cir. 2006),

indicated that after Saucier step two, we inquire into the reasonableness

of the officers’ mistake as a third, “final question” in the Saucier analysis,

469 F.3d at 1229. Although Skoog cites Jackson v. City of Bremerton, 268

F.3d 646, 651 (9th Cir. 2001), as support for this proposition, Jackson

actually refers to this final question as the “second inquiry” of the “twostep” analysis under Saucier. 268 F.3d at 651 (emphasis added). Neither

Skoog nor Jackson reached even the second step of Saucier analysis, both

instead finding that no constitutional violation was present at step one. As

far as we can tell, Skoog’s “third” question does not differ from the “second” question of Jackson and Saucier. In any event, if the two inquiries

ever do diverge, they do not do so here, so we use a two-step analysis. 

11886 INOUYE v. KEMNA
A.

In this case, it is essentially uncontested that requiring a

parolee to attend religion-based treatment programs violates

the First Amendment. We therefore spend relatively little time

on the first step of the qualified immunity analysis. 

[1] Nanamori and Inouye agree that reverence for “a higher

power” is a substantial component of the AA/NA program.

For the government to coerce someone to participate in religious activities strikes at the core of the Establishment Clause

of the First Amendment, whatever else the Clause may bar.7

As Justice Black wrote in the first modern Establishment

Clause case, Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947), the clause “means at least”

that “[n]either a state nor the Federal Government . . . . can

force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from

church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church

attendance or non-attendance.” This core holding has consistently been emphasized by the Court. “It is beyond dispute

that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise.” Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 587

(1992); see also Lee, 505 U.S. at 604 (Blackmun, J., concurring) (“[P]roof of government coercion is not necessary to

prove an Establishment Clause violation [but], it is sufficient.”); Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 653 (2002)

7The basic test for Establishment Clause violations remains that articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 613 (1971), which requires that

government acts (1) not have a “secular legislative purpose,” (2) not have

a “principal or primary effect” which either “advances [or] inhibits religion,” and (3) not foster “an excessive government entanglement” with

religion. As the Seventh Circuit noted in Kerr v. Farrey, 95 F.3d 472 (7th

Cir. 1996), a government mandate to attend religious or religion-based

events is clearly barred by the second prong of Lemon. Kerr, 95 F.3d at

478-79. 

INOUYE v. KEMNA 11887
(emphasizing importance of the presence of “private choice”

to avoid violations of the Establishment Clause).8

[2] Here, Nanamori is alleged to have required Inouye to

attend a program rooted in religious faith and then recommended revoking his parole because he refused to participate.

The Second and Seventh Circuits have found compelling prisoners and probationers to participate in AA/NA under similar

circumstances unconstitutionally coercive. See Warner v.

Orange County Dept. of Probation, 115 F.3d 1068 (2nd Cir.

1997), affirmed by Warner v. Orange County Dept. of Probation, 173 F.3d 120 (2nd Cir. 1999), cert. denied sub nom.

Orange County Dept. of Probation v. Warner, 528 U.S. 1003

(1999); Kerr v. Farrey, 95 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 1996). 

[3] We find the reasoning of the Seventh Circuit in Kerr

with regard to determining whether there was governmental

coercion of religious activity particularly useful. Kerr proceeded sequentially as follows: “first, has the state acted; second, does the action amount to coercion; and third, is the

object of the coercion religious rather than secular?” Kerr, 85

F.3d at 479. We adopt this mode of inquiry and conclude that

all three criteria are satisfied here. 

[4] First, Nanamori acted in his official state capacity as a

parole officer to order Inouye into AA/NA. That the state did

not run the program itself is “of no moment,” id. at 479, as

the state ordered participation. Second, the action was clearly

coercive: Inouye could be imprisoned if he did not attend and

he was, in fact, ultimately returned to prison in part because

of his refusal to participate in the program. 

[5] Addressing Kerr’s third prong is also quite straightforward. Our record on the content of the AA/NA program here

is limited to Inouye’s allegations that AA/NA is based in “a

8

In some circumstances, psychological coercion alone can be enough to

violate the Clause. Lee, 505 U.S. at 593. 

11888 INOUYE v. KEMNA
higher power.” Nanamori does not, however, dispute that the

program was substantially based in religion, and presents no

evidence that the program differed from the usual AA/NA

program, described by the Second Circuit in Warner as comprising “intensely religious events,” 115 F.3d at 1075, and by

the Seventh Circuit in Kerr as “fundamentally based on a religious concept of a Higher Power.” 95 F.3d at 480. As such,

on this summary judgment record and given the lack of dispute between the parties in question, we have no trouble

deciding that the third prong of Kerr’s Establishment Clause

test has been met as well.9

[6] Hence, we agree with the district court that Nanamori’s

actions were unconstitutional. While we in no way denigrate

the fine work of AA/NA, attendance in their programs may

not be coerced by the state.10 The Hobson’s choice Nanamori

offered Inouye — to be imprisoned or to renounce his own

religious beliefs — offends the core of Establishment Clause

jurisprudence.11

9We do not hold that AA/NA is itself a religion. We hold only that, for

the purposes of reviewing the grant of summary judgment and on the facts

alleged, the AA/NA program involved here has such substantial religious

components that governmentally compelled participation in it violated the

Establishment Clause. 

10The confidential nature of AA/NA treatment makes testing efficacy

difficult. There is, however, some data to suggest that the programs, as

part of a larger treatment strategy, have helped many people maintain their

sobriety, at least for a period of time. See Max Dehn, How It Works:

Sobriety Sentencing, The Constitution, and Alcoholics Anonymous, 10

MICH. ST. U. J. MED. & L. 255, 269-74 (compiling efficacy data). 

11There has been some academic suggestion that Cutter v. Wilkinson,

544 U.S. 709 (2005) has altered this core jurisprudence. See Morris Jenkins, Bradene Moore, Eric Lambert, & Alan Clarke, DUI Treatment Programs and Religious Freedom: Does Cutter v. Wilkinson Change the

Analysis?, 5 U. MD. L. J. RACE, RELIGION, GENDER & CLASS 351 (2005)

(Arguing Cutter creates space for mandated treatment programs with substantial religious components). We disagree. 

Cutter upheld a section of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized

Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq., against an

INOUYE v. KEMNA 11889
B.

Having held, first, as we must under Saucier, that there was

a constitutional violation on the facts alleged, we now turn to

the question at the heart of the parties’ dispute: was the pertinent Establishment Clause law “clearly established” on this

point such that a reasonable official would know that his or

her conduct was illegal? Sorrels, 290 F.3d at 969. We find

that it was. The vastly overwhelming weight of authority on

the precise question in this case held at the time of Nanamori’s actions that coercing participation in programs of this

kind is unconstitutional. 

[7] In 2001 — indeed, until this case — our Circuit had not

ruled on this question. “Absent binding precedent, we look to

all available decisional law, including the law of other circuits

and district courts, to determine whether the right was clearly

established. We also evaluate the likelihood that this circuit or

the Supreme Court would have reached the same result.”

Osolinksi v. Kane, 92 F.3d 934, 936 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal

citations omitted). While officers cannot be “expected to predict the future course of constitutional law,” Wilson v. Layne,

Establishment Clause challenge. The section barred the government from

imposing “a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution” unless that burden was in “furtherance

of a compelling government interest” and was the least restrictive means

of meeting that interest. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). As such, RLUIPA, as

Cutter held, was an example of Congressional accommodation of prisoners’ religious beliefs. 544 U.S. at 719-21. Such accommodation of the free

exercise of those beliefs did not violate the Establishment Clause, id. at

719. Here, by contrast, we confront the situation where the state mandates

that a parolee abandon the free exercise of his beliefs as a condition of

parole. The situation is entirely distinct; if anything, RLUIPA and Cutter

emphasize that prisoners and parolees need not, and ought not be required

to, abandon their beliefs when they pass through the gates of the jailhouse.

See Eric J. Sherbine, Comment, Does Cutter v. Wilkinson Change the

Analysis of State-Mandated DUI Programs?: A Critical Response, 6 U.

MD. L. J. RACE, RELIGION, GENDER & CLASS 223 (2006) (emphasizing

accommodation/coercion distinction). 

11890 INOUYE v. KEMNA
526 U.S. 603, 617 (1999), the law may be clearly established

even if there is no case directly on point. Id. at 615. It is

enough if “in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness

[is] apparent.” Id.

12 Here, Nanamori need not have relied on

more general cases. He had a wealth of on-point cases putting

him, and any reasonable officer, on notice that his actions

were unconstitutional. 

[8] By 2001, two circuit courts, at least three district courts,

and two state supreme courts had all considered whether prisoners or parolees could be forced to attend religion-based

treatment programs. Their unanimous conclusion was that

such coercion was unconstitutional. See Warner v. Orange

County Dept. of Probation, 115 F.3d 1068, 1074-75 (2nd Cir.

1997) (holding that it was a constitutional violation to impose

participation in AA/NA as a probation condition); Kerr v.

Farrey, 95 F.3d 472, 479-80 (7th Cir. 1996) (same for prisoners); Alexander v. Schenk, 118 F. Supp. 2d 298, 301-02

(N.D.N.Y. 2000) (same); Warburton v. Underwood, 2 F.

Supp. 2d 306, 318 (W.D.N.Y. 1998) (same); Ross v. Keelings,

2 F. Supp. 2d 810, 817-18 (E.D. Va. 1998) (same); Arnold v.

Tennessee Board of Paroles, 956 S.W.2d 478, 483-84 (Tenn.

1997) (AA/NA imposition unconstitutional as a parole condition); In the Matter of David Griffin v. Coughlin, 88 N.Y.2d

674, 691-92 (N.Y. 1996) (AA/NA imposition unconstitutional

with regard to a prisoner). 

We note that this march of unanimity has continued well

past March, 2001, when Nanamori acted. Indeed, a district

court found a constitutional violation on nearly identical facts

just one month later in April, 2001, finding, too, that the law

at that time was “clearly established” and no qualified immunity was available. See Bausch v. Sumiec, 139 F. Supp. 2d

12The result in the case before us might well have been the same without any on-point case law, because there is no Supreme Court or Ninth

Circuit case, of which we are aware, upholding government-mandated participation in religious activity in any context. 

INOUYE v. KEMNA 11891
1029, 1037, 1039 (E.D. Wis. 2001).13 More recent courts have

agreed. See Armstrong v. Beauclair, 2007 WL 1381790, *12-

*13 (slip op.) (D. Idaho Mar. 29, 2007) (noting supporting

rulings dating to 1996 and striking down AA/NA requirement

as parole condition); Turner v. Hickman, 342 F. Supp. 2d 887,

895-97 (E.D. Cal. 2004) (collecting cases and adopting Kerr

test to bar AA/NA as requirement for release on parole); Nusbaum v. Terrangi, 210 F. Supp. 2d 784, 789-91 (E.D. Va.

2002) (holding that there was a violation but finding qualified

immunity because defendants were making a good faith effort

to come into compliance with the law in prison context). The

only case of recent vintage that upheld participation in an AA/

NA program, decided in June, 2001, endorsed Kerr but held

against the plaintiff prison inmate because he had a choice of

programs and was not coerced to attend the one he challenged. In re Garcia, 24 P.3d 1091, 1096-97 (Wash. Ct. App.

2001). Garcia is thus entirely consistent with our holding and

with those of all the cases we have cited. 

The district court reviewed much of this law before holding

that a constitutional violation had occurred. Yet it held, nonetheless, that the law was not clearly established. The court

reached this conclusion because it believed that there were a

small number of “divergent opinions,” even though it noted

that a violation had been found “by the majority of federal

district courts and state courts,” along with the Seventh and

Second Circuits. The district court’s conclusion was in error,

both legally and factually. 

First, lack of complete unanimity does not mean that a legal

principle has not been clearly established. Second, the “divergent opinions” the district court relied upon totaled three, all

13Indeed, Warburton had concluded that the law was clear and no qualified immunity was available as early as 1998, based upon the decisions

available then. 2 F.Supp. 2d at 319. Schenk denied qualified immunity in

2000. 118 F.Supp.2d at 302-03. The law had not become any less clear a

year later, as Bausch shows. 

11892 INOUYE v. KEMNA
federal district court decisions, and each at least five years old

by 2001. Third, as the district court itself noted in its merits

discussion, two of these three cases — all except the oldest —

are “distinguishable from the instant case in critical ways.” 

O’Connor v. California, 855 F. Supp. 303 (C.D. Cal.

1994), a challenge to AA/NA imposed as part of a sentence

for drunk driving, acknowledged that the program was

“founded on monotheistic principles” but explained that it

was “[s]ignificant to this Court’s decision that the individual

has a choice over what program to attend.” Id. at 307-08

(emphasis in original). So O’Connor does not speak to the

coercion issue. 

The holding of Boyd v. Coughlin, 914 F. Supp. 828

(N.D.N.Y. 1996), which did uphold a coerced program, was

abrogated by the Second Circuit in Warner, and so was not

good law at the time the district court relied upon it as a “divergent opinion.” See Warner, 115 F.3d at 1074-75. 

Of the cases that the district court felt could have caused a

reasonable parole officer to be confused about the state of the

law, this leaves only Stafford v. Harrison, 766 F. Supp. 1014

(D. Kan. 1991).14 This case, a decade old in 2001, applied the

Lemon test directly, did not consider the warnings against

coercion dating back to Everson, and was decided using Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), deference because it

regarded prisoners, not probationers. Stafford, 766 F. Supp. at

1016-17. This factually-distinct case, decided before Lee reemphasized the dangers of coercion in the Establishment context, simply is not enough to render the state of the law in

2001 anything less than clear. 

14Although it is not cited by the district court or by the parties, we note,

for the sake of completeness, that an Illinois appellate court had upheld

AA/NA as a sentencing condition in 1988. See Youle v. Edgar, 526 N.E.2d

894, 899 (Il. App. Ct. 1988). Youle contained a one paragraph analysis and

cited no case law. And it, like Stafford was decided before Lee. It does not

weaken our conclusion that the law had become settled by 2001. 

INOUYE v. KEMNA 11893
[9] This uncommonly well-settled case law alone is enough

for us to hold that the law was clearly established, sufficient

to give notice to a reasonable parole officer, in 2001. But

there are additional factual circumstances in this case that persuade us still further. We consider them not for their subjective effect on Nanamori but for their objective effect on a

reasonable parole officer in his fact-specific position. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 641. 

[10] First, there was an ongoing federal suit against Hawaii

prison officials over mandatory religion-based treatment programs, filed by Inouye, at the time when Nanamori imposed

AA/NA as a parole condition. This suit, filed a year prior,

focused on the constitutionality of coerced religion-based

treatment programs and might well have put a reasonable

parole officer on notice, particularly with regard to the very

plaintiff in the suit.15

[11] Second, on the present record, a jury could infer

Nanamori had actual notice that his actions were unconstitutional, in the form of Inouye’s letter to the Hawaii Paroling

Authority objecting to such programs and attaching Kerr. The

district court suggests that Kerr did not provide adequate

notice because the court there granted qualified immunity,

holding that the law was not yet clearly established. But it is

Kerr, of course, which contributed greatly to establishing the

law, and which lays out, convincingly enough to guide any

officer facing the question since, why a constitutional violation occurs when AA/NA is simply required, without alternatives. A reasonable parole officer, reading Kerr four years

after it had been decided, and making the effort to learn that,

since it was decided, many courts have agreed with it and

none have disagreed, would be put on notice by the decision.

15Nanamori himself was not added to that suit until after these incidents

had occurred. See supra note 3. 

11894 INOUYE v. KEMNA
[12] Given all this, Nanamori’s mistake as to the law was

not reasonable. An officer in Nanamori’s position, having

available near-unanimous judicial invalidation of religious

coercion in this and similar contexts, with a lawsuit in progress against the prison system for mandating participation in

a similar program, and having Kerr in hand, should not have

reasonably repeated the same mistake. 

III. CONCLUSION

[13] We therefore reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment, as Nanamori does not have qualified immunity. The case should go to trial to determine any issues of

disputed fact that remain.16

REVERSED and REMANDED.

Defendant-Appellant Nanamori shall bear the costs of this

claim on appeal. 

TALLMAN, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment: 

I write separately because although I concur in the court’s

judgment, I cannot embrace the opinion’s broad language.

The only record evidence in this case that Inouye’s participation in Narcotics Anonymous/ Alcoholics Anonymous (“NA/

AA”) offends the Establishment Clause is a letter that

Inouye’s attorney wrote on his behalf to the parole board

before Inouye’s release that simply alleges that NA/AA “has

explicit religious content” and encloses a copy of the Seventh

16We do not decide when, if at all, non-coercive state endorsement or

encouragement of participation in AA/NA or other religion-based programs is unconstitutional or when, if ever, a parole officer simply allowing

or encouraging, but not requiring, such participation would lose qualified

immunity. 

INOUYE v. KEMNA 11895
Circuit’s decision in Kerr v. Farrey, 95 F.3d 472 (7th Cir.

1996). We know nothing about the content of the Hawaii Salvation Army’s NA/AA program. Indeed, other courts have

recognized that the “ ‘principal and primary effect’ of encouraging participation in AA is not to advance religious belief

but to treat substance abuse.” O’Connor v. California, 855 F.

Supp. 303, 307 (C.D. Cal. 1994). No one disputes that drug

treatment was a necessary condition for Inouye’s release on

parole. As the opinion correctly notes, however, the parties

appear to concede that compelled participation in the NA/AA

program at issue here does rise to the level of a First Amendment violation. 

Nonetheless, I am concerned that the court’s opinion gives

parolees incentive to file section 1983 actions when the simple solution would be to return to the sentencing court and

seek relief from alleged unconstitutional terms of parole

through appropriate motion practice. In fact, Nanamori testified that Inouye never asked to be placed in a different program and that Inouye was terminated from the NA/AA

program because he was continuing to use drugs and did not

attend any treatment sessions. 

Plainly, in this case, completion of a drug treatment program was integral to Inouye’s chances for success on parole.

Indeed, one of Inouye’s parole violations came as a result of

his drug-induced conduct at a hotel when he refused to leave

after checkout time and for which there was ample probable

cause to arrest him. Prisons are filled with offenders who suffer from drug abuse problems. Parole authorities must have

the means to require participation in drug treatment programs

if the parolee is to have any chance of success and to protect

the community from further drug-motivated crimes. See Warner v. Orange County Dep’t. of Prob., 115 F.3d 1068, 1077

(2d Cir. 1997) (commenting that the “policy of sending alcoholic defendants like Warner to A.A., . . . was . . . to help free

alcoholics from addiction by sending them to a program that

has been famously successful”). 

11896 INOUYE v. KEMNA
I also find overstated the court’s view of the “reasonable

parole officer.” It is somewhat of a stretch, as the opinion suggests, to require such officials to closely monitor the state of

the law and possess the legal acumen to determine when the

fine line of “clearly established” has been crossed and to act

accordingly. See Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 617 (1999)

(noting that officials are not “expected to predict the future

course of constitutional law”). This suggestion is especially

problematic when the parolee’s objection to any drug program

with questionable religious undertones could have been alleviated by asking for a different program or by filing a simple

motion with the sentencing court. 

However, because the law was clearly established at the

time, Nanamori is not entitled to qualified immunity, and it

will be for a jury to decide whether Inouye suffered any compensable damages as a result of being ordered to attend an

NA/AA program that he ultimately did not complete, in no

small part, because he could not avoid drugs. 

INOUYE v. KEMNA 11897