Knight v Thompson , Marginal Risk, and the Uncertainty of RLUIPA in the Eleventh Circuit

Abstract

Since the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Holt v Hobbs in 2015, lower courts have continued to struggle to find a unified sense of application regarding claims brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). In the United States, inmates may file RLUIPA claims if prison officials refuse to accommodate their religious needs. In examining these claims, a trend has emerged where federal courts have taken steps to avoid the full effect of Holt1 and looked primarily to Cutter v Wilkinson in extending a high level of deference to prison officials in charge of making these policy decisions—including religious accommodation requests. This trend is exemplified by a recent decision from the Eleventh Circuit in the case of Knight v Thompson, a case that involves a long-standing fight brought by a group of Native American inmates locked away in the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC).