Opinion ID: 765474
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Future Regulation of Silent, Individual Demonstrative Prayer

Text: 42 The district court held, as already noted, that Rule 105.11, as presently phrased, cannot be applied to prevent inmates from engaging in silent, individual, demonstrative prayer in recreation yards, and we affirm that holding. However, lawfully incarcerated persons retain only a narrow range of protected liberty interests, and prison officials have broad administrative and discretionary authority over the institutions they manage. See Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 467 (1983). The courts accordingly owe prison officials substantial deference. We do not hold that prison officials cannot prevent such conduct by clearly stating so in a new or amended Rule and giving inmates appropriate notice. We simply do not reach that issue. Cf., e.g., Shabazz v. Coughlin, 852 F.2d 697, 700 (noting that this court ha[s] not . . . directly addressed the constitutionality of restrictions on group prayer and prayer in prison yards.). Nor do we suggest that prison officials are prevented from disciplining inmates for engaging in silent, individual, demonstrative prayer in recreation yards through the use of already existing Rules that prohibit disturbances or interference with others, where the circumstances warrant it. 8 We simply hold that Rule 105.11 may not be harnessed into service, as the district court aptly put it, to serve as the disciplinary basis for conduct that it cannot reasonably be said to cover.