2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-8-2008 

# Y oung v . B e ard P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-1670

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Y oun g v . Be ar d " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 886. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/886NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_________________ N o. 07- 1670

_________________ RI CH AR D GL E NN YOU NG,

A ppel l ant v. JE F F R E Y B E A R D , C O M M IS S IO N E R D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T IO N S (“D O C ”); DO NA LD V AU GH N, SUPERI NTEN DEN T STATE CO RRECTI ON AL I NSTI TUTE AT G RA TERFORD ( “ SCI G”) ; BESS I E W I LLI AM S, GR I EVA NC E OFFI CI ALS ( “ DOC ” ) ; RO BE RT BI T NE R; T S HANNA C. KYL E R, DOC CO RR E CT I ONAL O F F IC E R S ; S C O T T B O W M A N ; D E L A N E Y H U M P H R E Y ; R A Y M O N D K N A U E R ; CH AR L I E J UDGE ; RA NDOL P H T AYL OR ; DAVI D DI GUGL I E L M O; J OHN M U RR A Y ; TH O M A S STA CH ELE K , U N I T M A N A G ER ( “ SCI G ” ) ; SH A RO N BU RK S; M A R Y C A N IN O ; L E S L IE H A T C H E R ; JE F F K E R R IN ; R O N A L D V E R S H IN S K I, A ppel l ees

________________ A ppeal fr om the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe E a ste rn D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 04- cv- 02211) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Paul S. D i amond

________________ A r gued: M ay8, 2008

________________ B efor e: B A R R Y and ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udges , and

RE S T ANI * , J udge ( Fi l ed: J ul y8, 2008)

________________________ *H onor abl e J ane A . R es t ani , C hi ef J udge of the U ni t ed St at es C our tof I nt ernat i onal T r ade, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.2

S t e p h e n D. Br o wn J enni ngs F. D ur and ( A r gued) D e c h e rt 2929 A r ch Str eet 1 8 th F loo r, C ir a C en tr e Phi l adel phi a, PA 19104 C ouns el forA ppel l ant T h o m a s W . C o rb e tt, Jr., A tto rn e yG e n e ra l C laud ia M . T eso ro, S en ior D ep u tyA tt o rne yG en era l ( A rgu ed ) C al vi n R . K oons , Seni orD eputyA t t orneyG ener al J ohn G . K norr , I I I , C hi ef D eputyA t t orneyG ener al , C hi ef, A ppel l at e Li t i gat i on Sect i on O f f ice o f A tto rn e yG e n e ra l o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia 21 Sout h 12th St r eet , 3r d Fl oor Phi l adel phi a, PA 19107 C ouns el forA ppel l ees

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ R E ST A N I , J udge. A ppel l antR i char d G l enn Y oung ( “Y oung”) appea l s fr om a j udgm entof the D i stri ctC ou rti n fav or of t he d efen dan t s, fi nd i ng that the li m i t at i on s pl aced o n p ri soners’ abi l i tyt o per form i n i ndepende ntm us i c gr oups di d notvi ol at e hi s r i ghtof fr eedom of e x p r e s s i o n a n d h i s r i g h t s u n d e rth e E s t a b l i s h m e n tC l a u s e o f th e F i r s tA m e n d m e n t . We wi l l a f f i r m. P ROCE DURAL AND F ACT UAL BA CKGROUND Y oung, an i nm at e s ervi ng a l i fe s ent ence atthe Penns y l vani a St at e C orr ect i onalI ndepende ntbands pr act i ced mul t i pl e t i m es perw eek a nd w er e r equi r ed t o gi ve at 1 l eas tthr ee pe r form ance s pery ear . I n 2002, ther e w er e appr oxi m at el yt en i ndepende nt b a n d s a t G ra ter f

o rd w ith th re e to tw e lv e m e m b e rs a p iec e th a t p ra c tice d in th e m u lti -le v e l, m ul t i - r oom audi t or i um ar ea. E ach ba nd had an i nm at e l eade rr es pons i bl e foror gani zi ng the gr oup, obt ai ni ng the musi c, and s chedul i ng r ehea r s al s and per form ance s . A s t aff m emberm ade pe r i odi c r ounds dur i ng pr act i ces t o s upervi s e the i nm at es and a c o rr e c tio n a l o f

f ic e r w a s p o s te d o u ts id e to c h e c k in m a te s a s th e yc a m e in . 3 I ns t i tut i on atG r at er for d ( “G r at er for d”) , part i ci pat ed i n the pr i s on’ s r ecr eat i onal in d e p e n d e n t b a n d p ro g ra m a n d w a s a m e m b e r o f a n in d e p e n d e n t in m a te b a n d th a t, i n 1 2002, w as fea tur ed i n a V H - 1 document aryent i t l ed “M us i c B ehi nd B ar s . ” A f ter se v e re p u b lic c riticism f o llo w in g th e b ro a d c a st, G ra ter f o rd su sp e n d e d its m us i c pr ogr am t o r evi ew w hetherchange s w er e nec es s ary . O n O ct ober21, 2002, Penns y l vani a D epart m entof C orr ect i ons ( “D O C ”) Secr et aryB ear d appoi nt ed a co m m ittee o f D O C p erso n n el t o ev alua te prison m u sic p rog ram s. T h e c o m m ittee’s m in u tes a n d p o licyp ro p o sa l in d ica ted th a t re c re a tio n a l m u sic g ro u p s in so m e f o rm sh o u ld cont i nue t o be perm i t t ed. Secr et aryB ear d t es t i fi ed thatbas ed on w hathe l earned dur i ng the comm i t t ee’ s i nves t i gat i on and byt al ki ng t o the deput i es and the s uper i nt endent , he concl uded thatthe i ndepende ntband pr ogr am w as notpr oper l yadmi ni s t er ed or s u p e rv is e d a n d u n d e rm in e d p ri s o n s e c u ri ty. A ft erpart i al l yr es t or i ng the musi c pr ogr am i n N ovember2002 and i ns t i tut i ng a new m us i c pol i cyi n A ugus t2003, a fi nal r evi s ed pol i cyw as i s s ued i n D ece m ber2003, w hi ch i s s t i l l i n eff

ect . I n addi t i on t o i ndi vi dual m us i c- pl ay i ng, w hi ch i s al l ow ed under var i ous condi t i ons i n cel l s , the pol i cyal l ow s fori ns trum ent al m us i cal per form ance s atG r at er for d has s i x r el i gi ous bands open t o i nm at es w ho ar e mem ber s of the 2 congr egat i on and theyar e al l ow ed tw o hour s perw eek t o r ehea r s e forupcomi ng s ervi ces i n the s m al l confe r ence r oom i n t he chapel . A chapl ai n i s di r ect l yr es pons i bl e for s upervi s i ng i nm at es and a c orr ect i ons offi cerus ual l yr emai ns out s i de the doorand ca n o b s e rv e in s id e th e ro o m th ro u g h a w in d o w in th e d o o r. 4 re lig io u s s e rv ice s, a n a n n u a l tale n t sh o w , an d sp e c ial e v e n ts a s a p p ro v e d b yth e f a c ili ty 2 m anage r . T he new pol i cypr ovi des thatanyi nm at e mayappl yt o per form i n the t al ent sh o w . T o p e rf

o rm a t a s p e c ial e v e n t, i n m a tes m u st b e n o m in a ted b ya n in m a te o rg a n iz a tio n a n d m a yre c e iv e u p to f iv e s u p e rv is e d re h e a rs a ls o f s e v e ra l h o u rs a p ie c e . T he i ndepende nti nm at e bands as theyexi s t ed i n 2002, how ever , ar e no l ongerperm i t t ed u n d e r t h e re v is e d p o lic y . Si nce the form eri ndepende nti nm at e band pr ogr am w as el i m i nat ed, Y oung has not part i ci pat ed i n t he G r at er for d m us i c pr ogr am, exce ptthathe and s ever al of hi s form er b a n d m a tes p a rticip a ted in th e 2 0 0 5 tale n t sh o w . Y o u n g is n o t a m e m b e r o f a n in m a te or gani zat i on and has notpart i ci pat ed i n anys peci al event s , i s notpartof a r el i gi ous band, a n d d o e s n o t w ish to p lay th e typ e o f m u sic p layed b yth e a llo w e d in stitu tio n a l m u sic g ro u p s . Y oung fi l ed a c i vi l act i on pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983 on J une 25, 2004, and a thi r d amended compl ai nton A ugus t11, 2006, al l egi ng thatthe el i m i nat i on of the pr i or in m a te in d e p e n d e n t b a n d p ro g ra m v io late d h is rig h t to f re e d o m o f

e x p re ss io n a n d h is ri gh t s und er the E st abli shm ent C l ause an d E qu al P rot ect i on C l ause of the F i rs t A m endment . O n A ugus t23, 2006, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the def endant s ’ m ot i on for5

s um m aryj udgm enton t he Equal Pr ot ect i on cl ai m . A ft erY oung’ s O ct ober27, 2006, St i pul at i on of D i s m i s s al , al l cl ai m s w er e di s m i s s ed, exce ptthos e s eeki ng i nj unct i ve r el i ef agai ns tSecr et aryB ear d and D O C Super i nt endentD i G ugl i el m o. O n J anuary31, 2007, fol l ow i ng a benc h tr i al , the D i s tr i ctC our tent er ed j udgm entforthe def endant s on the re m a in in g c la im s . J URI S DI CTI ON AND S TANDA RD O F REVI EW T hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e r evi ew the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr orand i t s l egal concl us i ons de novo. U ni t ed St at es v. W ea v er, 26 7 F . 3 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). DI S CU S S I ON I . F ree dom of

E x pres s i on “[I ] m pr i s onm entdoes notaut om at i cal l ydepr i ve a pr i s onerof ce r t ai n i m por t ant c o n stitu tio n a l p ro tec tio n s, in c lu d in g th o se o f th e F irst A m e n d m e n t,” b u t in m a tes ’ rig h ts m aybe more r es tr i ct ed than thos e of non- i nm at es , as l ong as the pr i s on r egul at i ons that do s o ar e “‘ r eas onabl yr el at ed’ t o l egi t i m at e penol ogi cal i nt er es t s , and ar e notan ‘e x a g g e ra ted re sp o n se ’ to su c h o b jec tiv e s.” B e a rd v . B a n k s, 5 4 8 U .S . 5 2 1 , 1 2 6 S . C t. 2572, 2577–78 ( 2006) ( quot i ng T urnerv. Safl ey , 482 U . S. 78, 87 ( 1987) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) ) . O nce a pl ai nt i ff ha s demonstr at ed thata cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed i nt er es ti s ats t ake, T urnerv. Safl eys et s outa fourfac t ort es tt o det erm i ne the r eas onabl enes s of the r egul at i on. T urner , 482 U . S. at89–90. T he Turne rt es tr equi r es6

th a t: Fi r s t , ther e mustbe a va l i d, r at i onal connec t i on betw een the pr i s on re g u latio n a n d th e leg iti m a te g o v e rn m e n tal in ter e st p u t f o rw a rd to ju stif

yit, an d this co n n ec ti o n m u st no t be s o rem o te as to re n d er the p o li cyarb itrary o r irra tio n a l. S e c o n d , a c o u rt m u st c o n sid e r w h e th e r in m a tes re tain al t ernat i ve m eans of

exerci si ng the cir cum scr i bed ri gh t . T hir d, a cou rtm ust t ake i nt o acc ountthe cos t s thatacc om m odat i ng the r i ghtw oul d i m pos e on o ther inm ates, gu ard s, an d p ri so n reso u rce s g en era ll y . A n d fo u rth , a c o u rt m u st c o n sid e r w h e th e r th e re a re a ltern a tiv e s to th e re g u latio n th a t f u lly acc om m odat e[ ] the pr i s oner ’ s r i ght s atde mi ni m i s cos tt o val i d penol ogi cal i nter est s. D e H a rt v . H o rn , 2 2 7 F .3 d 4 7 , 5 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ). Subst ant i al defe r ence m us tbe gi ven t o pr i s on admi ni s tr at or s ’ j udgm ent . O vert on v. B azz ett a, 539 U . S. 126, 132 ( 2003) . W hi l e pl ai nt i ffs bearthe over al l bur den of per s uas i on, i d. , pr i s on admi ni s tr at or s ar e r equi r ed t o demonstr at e a r at i onal connec t i on betw een the pol i cyand the al l eged i nt er es t , w hi ch “‘ m us tamount [ ] t o m or e than a c o n c lu so rya ss e rtio n .’” J o n e s v . B ro w n , 4 6 1 F .3 d 3 5 3 , 3 6 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (q u o tin g W o lf v . A sh cro ft, 2 9 7 F . 3 d 3 0 5 , 3 0 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion s o m itted)). T he Fi r s tA m endment ’ s r i ghtt o fr eedom of expr es s i on i ncl udes m us i cal e x p re ss io n , an d b a n d p e rf o rm a n c e s a re p ro tec ted a s a f o rm o f e x p re ss iv e e n ter tain m e n t. W ar d v. R ock A gai ns tR aci s m , 491 U . S. 781, 790 ( 1989) ; s ee a l s o T acynec v. C i tyof Phi l adel phi a, 687 F. 2d 793, 796 ( 3d C i r . 1982) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdet erm i ned, and the part i es do n ot di spute, that this con trol l i ng authori tydem on strat ed that“Y ou ng has a F i rs t A m endmentr i ghtt o expr es s hi m s el f thr ough m us i c, ei theri ndi vi dual l yorw i th a band. ” (J .A . 2 3 .)7

O n the otherhand, the enha ncementof pr i s on s ecur i tyand pr operal l ocat i on of r es our ces ar e l egi t i m at e governm enti nt er es t s . See O vert on, 539 U . S. at133 ( i nt ernal pr i s on s ecur i tyi s “perhaps the mostl egi t i m at e of pe nol ogi cal goal s ”) ; s ee a l s o J ones , 461 F .3 d a t 3 6 1 (p ri s o n a d m in is tr a to rs h a v e a le g itim a te in te re s t in in s titu tio n a l s e c u ri ty). H er e, the r ecor d es t abl i s hes thatther e i s a r at i onal connec t i on betw een the el i m i nat i on of the pr i ori ndepende ntband pr ogr am and i ns t i tut i onal s ecur i tybeca us e the poor s upervi s i on of the pr ogr am i t s el f cr eat ed an uns afe i nm at e envi r onm ent . Pr i s on a d m in istra to rs d id m o re th a n m a k e a “ c o n c lu so rya ss e rtio n ” th a t th e p ro g ra m w a s a risk to pr i s on s ecur i ty ; r ather , theyw entthr ough the s t andar d r evi ew pr oces s foreval uat i ng a p o li cy . A co m m ittee w as f ir st created to ev alua te th e m u sic p rog ram an d the c o m m ittee’s re c o m m e n d a tio n s w e re su b m itt e d a lo n g w ith a re v ise d d ra f t p o licyf o r c o n sid e ra tio n to the Execut i ve D eputySecr et ary . T he dr aftpol i cy , w i th anyr ecomm ended e di t s , w as t hen fur thers ubm i t t ed forr evi ew t o t he di r ect orof the B ur eau of Pol i cyand St andar ds and th e n s u b m itte d f

o r f in a l a p p ro v a l to S e c re ta ry B e a rd . T he D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l ydet erm i ned thatthe i ni t i al r eas on fors us pendi ng t he m us i c pr ogr am w as i r r el evant , beca us e al though Secr et aryB ear d “i ni t i al l ys us pended the p e rf o rm a n c e o f

m u sic a t G ra ter f

o rd in re a c tio n to th e V H -1 c o n tro v e rsy, h e su b se q u e n tly m ade c hanges t o t he I ndepende ntB and Pr ogr am becaus e M r . B ear d bel i eved thatthe p rog ram . . . w as n o t safe . ” (J.A . 1 4 . ) S p ec ifi ca ll y , co n ce rns c en tered o n b an d lead ers bei ng pl ace d i n char ge of otheri nm at es and the manneri n w hi ch the thr ee- fl oor8

arr angementw as s upervi s ed. T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound that“vi r tual l yeveryw eekda y , up t o s i xtyi nm at es pr act i ced s i m ul t aneous l ythr oughoutthe audi t or i um ar ea” and that“the m u lti -f lo o r, m u lti -ro o m layou t o f th e re h e a rsa l ar e a m a d e it i m p o ss ib le . . . t o d ire c tly su p e rv ise th e d o z e n s o f re h e a rsin g in m a tes m o re o f ten th a n o n c e e v e rytw e n tyo r th irty m inu tes. ” (Id . at 9.) D u e to th ese co n ce rns, th e D istri ct C o u rtem p h asize d S ec retary B ear d’ s r i ghtt o be pr oact i ve, r atherthen mer el yr eac t i ve i n hi s s upervi s oryr ol e, fi ndi ng that“[t ] he C ons t i tut i on di d notr equi r e [Sec r et aryB ear d] t o w ai tfora tr agedyt o occur befor e he c oul d l i m i ti nm at e r ehea r s al s t o thos e thatthe pr i s on coul d di r ect l ys upervi s e. ” (I d . a t 2 5 .) Sever al vi abl e al t ernat i ves s t i l l exi s tfori nm at es t o exer ci s e thei rfr ee e xpr es s i on ri gh t s. G rat erford’ s curr ent m usi c program and i t s pre- 20 02 m usi c program “are, i n m ost r es pect s , the s ame, ” bec aus e i nm at es can s t i l l t ake musi c cl as s es , be partof an in stitu tio n a l b a n d , p e rf

o rm a t th e tale n t sh o w a n d a t sp e c ial e v e n ts, a n d p lay m u sic in d iv id u a llyin th e ir c e lls. (Id . at 2 4

– 2 5 .) T h e o n lysig n if ica n t ch a n g e is th e re d u c tio n in r ehea r s al t i m e thati ndepende ntbands can e nj oy . R ei ns t at i ng the i ndepende ntband pr ogr am as i tpr evi ous l yexi s t ed w oul d al s o have a s er i ous eff ecton guar ds , i nm at es , and pr i s on r es our ces . I tw oul d s i gni fi cant l yunderm i ne s afe tydue t o the l ack of r es our ces avai l abl e forpr opers upervi s i on, as thi s w as partof the r eas on fordi s cont i nui ng i ndepende ntbands , and ther e i s no i ndi cat i on i n the r ecor d thatthes e r es our ces ar e now avai l abl e. Fi nal l y , al though pl ai nt i ff ha s pr opos ed ce r t ai n ar guabl yl es s r es tr i ct i ve9

a ltern a tiv e s to th e m u sic p o licyG ra ter f o rd u lti m a telyim p o se d , T u rn e r a d o p ted its d e f e re n tial sta n d a rd o f

re v iew f o r “ q u e stio n s o f

‘p riso n e rs r ig h ts’” p re c ise lyb e c a u se it recogn i zed thatpri son ad m i nis trat ors m ustbe acc orded a deg ree of fl exibi l i tyt o ad dress the “c om pl ex and i ntr act abl e” pr obl ems thatar i s e i n ourpr i s ons . See Turne r , 482 U . S. at 8 4

– 8 9 . It i s f

o r th is re a so n th a t p riso n o f f icia ls a re re q u ire d to a d o p t o n lya re a so n a b le re s p o n s e to th e g o v e rn m e n ta l in te re s t a s s e rt e d , n o t th e b e s t o r l e a s t r e s tr ic tiv e re s p o n s e . F o r th e re a so n s s e t f

o rth a b o v e , w e f

in d th a t th e G ra ter f

o rd m u sic p ro g ra m is a re a so n a b le r es pons e t o the s ecur i tyconce r ns defe ndanthas i dent i fi ed. A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noterri n fi ndi ng thatthe r es tr i ct i on of i ndepende ntbands i n G r at er for d’ s m us i c pr ogr am sat i s fi ed the Turne rt es tand that Y o u n g ’s F ir s t A m e n d m e n t r ig h t o f f re e d o m o f

e x p re s s io n w a s n o t v io la te d . II. T h e E st ab l i shm en t C l au se T h e E sta b lish m e n t C lau se o f th e F irst A m e n d m e n t p ro v id e s th a t “C o n g re ss sh a ll m ake no l aw r es pect i ng an es t abl i s hm entof r el i gi on. ” U . S. C ons t . amend. I . T he S u p rem e C o u rth as a rt iculated v ariou s tests fo r an aly zing E stab li sh m en t C laus e c lai m s. It has tr adi t i onal l yappl i ed a t es tt erm ed the “Lem on” t es t , underw hi ch “the cha l l enged act i on i s uncons t i tut i onal i f ( 1) i tl acks a s ecul arpurpos e, ( 2) i t s pr i m aryeff ectei ther advanc es ori nhi bi t s r el i gi on, or( 3) i tfos t er s an exc es s i ve ent angl ementof governm ent w ith reli g ion . ” M o d rov ich v . A ll eg h en yC o u n ty , 3 8 5 F . 3 d 3 9 7 , 4 0 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). M o re re c e n tly , the C o u rt h a s a lso a p p lied a n “ e n d o rse m e n t” in q u iryf o r c e rta in10

E sta b lish m e n t C lau se c laim s. “ T h e re lev a n t q u e stio n u n d e r th e e n d o rse m e n t tes t is ‘w h e th e r a re a so n a b le o b se rv e r f a m ili a r w ith th e h isto rya n d c o n tex t o f th e d isp lay w o u ld per cei ve the di s pl ayas a governm entendor s ementof r el i gi on. ’ ” B or den v. Sch. D i s t . of T w p. of E. B runs w i ck, 523 F. 3d 153, 175 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng M odr ovi ch, 385 F. 3d at 4 0 1 ). T h u s , w h e n th e g o v e rn m e n t “ a f f ir m a tiv e ly su p p o rt s re lig io n o n p re f e re n tia l te rm s ,” i t s act i ons vi ol at e the Est abl i s hm entC l aus e underthe endor s ementt es t . T enaf l yE ruv A ss’n v . B o rou g h o f T en af ly , 3 0 9 F . 3 d 1 4 4 , 1 7 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). W e have expl ai ned thatthe “e ndor s ement ” t es ti s appl i cabl e “[ i ] n cas es i nvol vi ng s t at e part i ci pat i on i n a r el i gi ous act i vi ty . ” B or den, 523 F. 3d at175 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) ; s ee also F ree tho u g h t So c’yo f G rea ter P h il a. v. C h ester C o u n ty , 3 3 4 F . 3 d 2 4 7 , 2 5 8 (3d C ir . 2003) . T he C our tal s o emphasi zes that“[t ] he t ouchs t one for[i t s E s t abl i s hm entC l aus e] a n a ly sis is th e p rin c ip le th a t th e ‘F irst A m e n d m e n t m a n d a tes g o v e rn m e n tal n e u tra lity b e tw e e n re lig io n a n d re lig io n , an d b e tw e e n re lig io n a n d n o n re lig io n .’” M c C re a ryC o u n ty v . A C L U o f

K y ., 5 4 5 U .S . 8 4 4 , 8 6 0 (2 0 0 5 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). Y ou ng cl ai m s that the n ew pri son m usi c po l i cyviol at es the E st abli shm ent C l ause b e c a u se , w h ile th e p rio r in d e p e n d e n t b a n d p ro g ra m w a s re m o v e d , relig io u s b a n d s a re still p e rm itt e d . T h e n o tio n o f g o v e rn m e n tal n e u tra lityis a n im p o rta n t g u id e , b u t itis n o t a r i gi d rul e. I d. at874. T he Supr eme C our thas l ong r ecogni zed that“ther e i s r oom for pl ayi n the j oi nt s ” betw een the Fi r s tA m endment ’ s tw o cl aus es conce rni ng r el i gi on: “the governm entm ay. . . acc om m odat e r el i gi ous pr act i ces . . . w i thoutvi ol at i ng the11

E s t abl i s hm entC l aus e, ” but“[a ] ts om e poi nt , acc om m odat i on m aydevol ve i nt o ‘ an unl aw ful fos t er i ng of r el i gi on. ’ ” 

### Cutt e r v. W i l ki ns on, 544 U. S. 709, 713–14 ( 2005) ( c i t at i ons omi tt e d) . G r at er for d’ s m us i c pr ogr ams have notcr os s ed the thr es hol d i nt o “unl aw ful fos t er i ng. ” V i ew ed thr ough t he pr i s m of the Lem on t es t , the r el i gi ous m us i c pr ogr am has a val i d purpos e, beca us e the Fr ee Exer ci s e C l aus e r equi r es the governm entt o m ake r eas onabl e r el i gi ous acc om m odat i on fori t s pr i s oner s , H uds on v. Pal m er , 468 U . S. 517, 523–24 ( 1984) , and “i ti s a perm i s s i bl e l egi s l at i ve purpos e t o al l evi at e s i gni fi cant g o v ern m en tal interfe ren ce w ith the a b il ityo f re li g iou s o rga n izati o n s to d ef ine a n d ca rry outthei rr el i gi ous m i s s i ons . ” C orp. of the Pr es i di ng B i s hop v. A m os , 483 U . S. 327, 335 ( 1987) . W e fi nd not hi ng i n t he r ecor d r emot el ys ugges t i ng thatthe cha nges t o the s ecul ar m us i c pr ogr am had a purpos e of pr om ot i ng r el i gi on. A nd, al though the r el i gi ous and n o n -reli g iou s p rog ram s are n o t prec isel ythe s am e, w e d o n o t believe that the p ri m ary e f f e c t o f th e p riso n ’s m u sic p o licie s w ill b e to a d v a n c e re lig io n . T h e re lig io u s m u sic pr ogr am i s ent i r el yopt i onal , and the pr i s on s t i l l offe r s s ever al opt i ons form us i cal ex p ression , b o th reli g iou s an d n o n -reli g iou s. T h e D istri ct C o u rtfo u n d that the p ri so n ’s r evi s i on t o t he s ecul arm us i c pr ogr am has notcaus ed i nm at es t o s eek t o j oi n the r el i gi ous p r o g r a m. Fur ther , the cont i nued al l ow ance of r el i gi ous bands has notcomm uni cat ed ei ther an endor s ementora di s appr oval of anyr el i gi on beca us e musi cal expr es s i on i s notl i m i t ed12

t o r el i gi ous cont ext s . W e do notbel i eve a “r eas onabl e obs erver ” coul d i nt erpr et G ra te rf o rd ’s m u s ic p ro g ra m s a s a n e n d o rs e m e n t o f re lig io n . A c c o rd in g ly , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in c o n c lu d in g th a t G ra ter f o rd ’s m u sic pr ogr am does notvi ol at e the Est abl i s hm entC l aus e. CO NC L US I ON F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill A F F IR M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e D istric t C o u rt.

_____________________________ T O T HE CL E RK : Pl eas e ki ndl yfi l e the for egoi ng O pi ni on. B yth e C o u rt, /s/ Ja n e A . R e sta n i J u d g e