Thus, the Free Exercise clause applies. To evaluate whether a given regulation meets this standard, the court should consider the connection between the asserted justification and the regulation, what alternatives prisoners retain for exercising the right in question, the impact accommodation will have on prison resource allocation, and whether there are easy alternatives. In this inquiry, courts are not to determine whether there is a better means of accommodating the concerns at issue, but simply whether the prison's chosen method is reasonable. See id . Outside Religious Leader Plaintiffs claim that the new prison rule banning inmates from leading religious services violates their free exercise rights.
Defendants claim that the regulation is needed to maintain prison security.
Maintaining security in a prison is unquestionably a legitimate penological interest. The defendants state that this rule protects against security threats that occur when inmates leading services attain power and influence over other inmates. Previously, prisoners could choose a leader from the prison population to conduct religious services. The policy now provides that only outside religious leaders, chosen by prison administrators, may conduct services. However, when an outside leader is unavailable, the policy does allow for an inmate to conduct services with adequate supervision from another prison chaplain.