It is difficult to define “Wiccan” because the word includes an amalgam of rites and rituals that apparently attempt to form a secularist religion. Regardless of its mission or an understanding of its purpose, Wiccan prisoners in state prisons considered themselves religious enough to demand a chaplain. Prison officials held hearings and administratively denied Wiccan requests. Unsurprisingly, several of the Wiccans sought judicial review in U.S. District Court alleging violation of every conceivable Constitutional right possible.
Plaintiffs filed a First Amendment Free Exercise claim; a First Amendment Establishment claim; a Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Claim; the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act; Article I Section 4 of the California Constitution, i.e. the equivalent of the federal First Amendment Establishment Clause. The core of the Wiccan 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim sought public expense to hire a full time chaplain. Plaintiffs alleged that a Wiccan “chaplain” was available only infrequently, but all other major religious faiths employ representives paid at public expense and always available. It took three amended complaints before the district court denied all claims. Plaintiffs appealed to the 9th Circuit.
To its credit, the 9th Circuit panel denied all claims except the First Amendment Establishment Clause and the State Constitution Freedom of Religion Exercise Clause. The 9th Circuit panel noted not every inmate is entitled to a special spiritual adviser, but the court allowed the pleadings to remain on the Establishment Clauses, state and federal. According to the panel, the Wiccans can attempt to prove at trial the criteria used by the prison in employing a “chaplain” is not neutral. Of course this will require discovery, trial time, attorney fees and possible appeal. And you wonder why the 9th Circuit is cluttered with these absurd cases.
With respect, the rationale for this decision is unclear, vague and of no value as precedent in future cases. The 9th Circuit panel cited several cases from the Supreme Court and other Circuits concluding that judges are not administrators and should not interfere in the administration of a prison by those employees and mangers who understand and work within the system. This advice has been repeatedly ignored by the 9th Circuit, ordering prison officials to comply with certain requests costing the Department money, delaying processing and supervision of inmates, and otherwise interfering with administration of an institution housing irresponsible, vicious and dangerous inmates.
The Hartmann opinion is worthless and ought to be reheard.
In one of the 9th Circuit’s more recent departure from reality: the state prison (in a federal court) cannot cut hair of an inmate who alleges his religion forbits it; Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989 (2005). And this was a court case?