This is a First Amendment case involving the provision of Halal meat to Muslim prisoners. The Clearinghouse has limited information about this case, much of which comes from an ACLU press release. According to the press release, Muslim prisoners asked the East Jersey State Prison to provide them with Halal meals after the prison banned them from receiving food packages from family members. In response, the prison offered vegetarian Halal meals. But the prisoners believed that they had a religious obligation to eat Halal meat.

Several prisoners sued the New Jersey Department of Corrections and the prison Administrator on June 15, 1999, raising free exercise and equal protection arguments. They argued that the prison treated them worse than similarly-situated Jewish prisoners, for whom the state engaged an outside contractor to provide Kosher meals. The state responded that the prisoners were treated the same as the Jewish prisoners because the contractor provided only vegetarian Kosher meals. The state also pointed out that it only engaged the contractor to provide Kosher meals because Kosher meals could not be prepared in the prison, but the prison could prepare vegetarian Halal meals.

On October 12, 1999, Judge Maryanne T. Barry granted a preliminary injunction that required the prison to provide Halal food to the plaintiffs. The defendants moved for reconsideration and summary judgment, and the case was reassigned to Judge Faith S. Hochberg.

The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on June 20, 2000. It reasoned that mainstream Islam does not require adherents to eat Halal meat, so the prison's policy adequately accommodated the plaintiffs' religious preferences. The Third Circuit reversed on October 2, 2002, reasoning that the fact other Muslims practiced differently did not control so long as the plaintiffs' own religious beliefs were sincerely held.

The ACLU-NJ represented the plaintiffs on remand. In 2003, the parties reached an agreement under which the prison would sell Halal meat in the commissary. However, the parties continued to dispute whether the State could require prisoners to pay for the Halal meat. The Clearinghouse is not aware of whether or how the parties resolved this dispute.

The court entered an order stipulating to dismissal on September 14, 2004. But in 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. The court scheduled a hearing, but there is no additional activity on the docket. The Clearinghouse does not know how (or if) the parties ultimately resolved their dispute.

Samuel Poortenga - 03/19/2021


compress summary