Opinion ID: 202696
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Spratt's Burden

Text: 16 For purposes of this appeal, the state does not seriously dispute that Spratt's evidence on his prima facie case is sufficient to survive summary judgment. As an inmate in a state correctional facility, Spratt is an institutionalized person within the definition of RLUIPA. See id. § 1997(1) (The term `institution' means any facility or institution—(A) which is owned, operated, or managed by, or provides services on behalf of any State or political subdivision of a State; and (B) which is-(ii) a jail, prison, or other correctional facility . . . .). Furthermore, it is clear that preaching is a form of religious exercise. See McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618, 626, 98 S.Ct. 1322, 55 L.Ed.2d 593 (1978) ([T]he right to the free exercise of religion unquestionably encompasses the right to preach, proselyte, and perform other similar religious functions.). 17 As to the second prong, RIDOC devotes a footnote in its brief to suggesting that Spratt's exercise of . . . religion in general is not being substantially burdened. Appellees' Br. at 11 n. 6. RIDOC points out that Spratt may still attend and participate in religious services. He may pray, sing, or recite during such services just as every other inmate may. Id. We have not yet had the opportunity to define what constitutes a substantial burden under RLUIPA. The district court decided that a substantial burden is one that put[s] substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, citing Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division, 450 U.S. 707, 718, 101 S.Ct. 1425, 67 L.Ed.2d 624 (1981); see also Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 187 (4th Cir.2006) (applying the Thomas standard in a RLUIPA case). Assuming arguendo that Thomas applies, RIDOC has not on this appeal seriously contested the issue and Spratt has stated that RIDOC will not allow him to preach anytime or anywhere, threatening that if he does so, he will be subject to disciplinary sanctions. As such, for the purposes of this appeal, Spratt has made a prima facie showing that his religious exercise has been substantially burdened.