Case: Sostre v. McGinnis

This is a historic case about religious liberty in New York prisons. It's part of the Clearinghouse's collection of several cases brought by prisoners rights activist (and prisoner) Martin Sostre, whose wikipedia biography is here. 

In 1964, Sostre and other individuals incarcerated at Attica sued the New York Commissioner of Correction and the warden of Attica under §1983. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant violated their rights with respect to their religious practice, including the right “to attend together congregational worship,” communicate with ministers of their faith, have such ministers visit the prison, and possess various religious publications. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, including an order that the defendants provide congregational religious services and cease enforcing regulations which prohibited the plaintiffs and other incarcerated Muslim people at Attica from conducting their religious activities. They additionally sought an injunction to restore their good time credits.

We do not have much information about the initial stages of this litigation, but according to the subsequent appellate decision, the district court entered judgment for the defendants on the religious persecution claim and otherwise dismissed the complaint. The court reasoned that a federal court should abstain deciding the case while New York state courts were given an opportunity to act determine the plaintiff’ rights under New York law.

The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Second Circuit, which reversed and remanded the district court. The appeals court agreed that the state courts must be given an opportunity to propose workable rules for prison administration of these religious rights. But the court determined that the district court should retain jurisdiction to intervene if the state unreasonably delayed proposing those rules.

The Second Circuit found that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the Muslim Brotherhood, with which the plaintiffs associated, constituted a religion. The court cited Pierce v. LaVallee, 293 F.2d 233 (2d Cir. 1961), another case litigated by Martin Sostre, to note that individuals have constitutional protection to practice their religious even while confined to prison, although officials could place extensive limitations in the context of prison administration. 334 F.2d 906. This idea — “insofar as possible within the limits of prison discipline[,]” incarcerated people should be allowed to practice their religion in prison — was groundbreaking at the time. See Derek L. Gaubatz, RLUIPA at Four: Evaluating the Success and Constitutionality of RLUIPA’s Prisoner Provisions, 28 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 501, 507 (2005).

The plaintiffs sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court denied their petition. 379 U.S. 892 (October 26, 1964). 

We do not have additional information about the case.