Opinion ID: 511991
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Legal Test

Text: 3 It is well established that prisoners must be accorded reasonable opportunities to exercise their religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 1081, n. 2, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 (1972). However, conflicts have arisen between prisoners' exercise of this right and genuine concerns of day-to-day prison administration. Two recent Supreme Court cases have addressed this issue. In Turner v. Safley, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987), the Court declared: [W]hen a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Id. 107 S.Ct. at 2261. The Court then set forth several factors for determining the reasonableness of prison regulations challenged in this respect. First, there must be a  'valid, rational connection' between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it. Id. 107 S.Ct. at 2262. Second, the governmental objective must be a legitimate and neutral one. 4 Id. Third, courts must consider the impact on guards, other inmates, and the allocation of prison resources that would result from accommodating the asserted right. Finally, courts must examine the available alternatives. Id. 4 In O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 2400, 96 L.Ed.2d 282 (1987), the Court applied the Turner factors to a case similar to the one at hand. There, Muslim prisoners challenged a prison policy that required minimum security inmates to work outside the main institution, because the requirement forced the prisoners to miss Jumu'ah. O'Lone, 107 S.Ct. at 2402-03. The Court upheld this policy, noting that [w]hile we in no way minimize the central importance of Jumu'ah to [the prisoners], we are unwilling to hold that prison officials are required by the Constitution to sacrifice legitimate penological objectives to that end. Id. 107 S.Ct. at 2406. The Court noted that all of the Turner factors were present. The requirement that some prisoners work outside the main compound was justified by concerns of internal order and security. O'Lone 107 S.Ct. at 2405. The policy prohibiting returns during the day was a safeguard against congestion and delays at the main gate, which was a high security risk area. Id. The Court also noted that there was no indication that the prisoners were discriminated against because they were Muslims, and that the prisoners were free to observe a number of their religious obligations, had the right to congregate for prayer or discussion at almost all times except working hours, and had an Islamic chaplain with free access to the prison. Id. 107 S.Ct. at 2406. Furthermore, the Court observed that there [were] no obvious, easy alternatives to the policy adopted by [the prison officials]. Id. 107 S.Ct. at 2407.