## Facts

- Thomas H. Baranowski, a Jewish inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), sued TDCJ officials under § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- He alleged TDCJ failed to provide weekly Sabbath and other Jewish holy day services and restricted Jewish inmates’ access to the prison chapel.
- He alleged TDCJ’s refusal to provide a kosher diet substantially burdened his religious exercise.
- TDCJ submitted evidence that Jewish services depended on availability of an outside rabbi/volunteer and were generally held monthly; inmates were allowed to observe recognized Jewish holy days.
- TDCJ asserted chapel scheduling limits driven by security, staffing, and space constraints, and noted Jewish inmates comprised less than one percent of the inmate population.
- On diet, TDCJ asserted significant cost and administrative burdens for kosher meals and offered alternatives such as vegetarian and pork-free options.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants and denied Baranowski’s requests for appointed counsel, an evidentiary hearing, and a jury trial.

## Issues

1. Whether limits on Jewish services and chapel access imposed an unlawful burden under RLUIPA and violated the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause.
2. Whether refusal to provide a kosher diet violated RLUIPA and the Free Exercise Clause.
3. Whether TDCJ’s treatment of Jewish inmates violated the Equal Protection Clause.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying appointed counsel, an evidentiary hearing, and a jury trial.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants on all claims.
- On RLUIPA claims, the court held that even assuming a substantial burden, TDCJ showed compelling interests (security and resource constraints) and that the challenged practices were the least restrictive means available in that setting.
- On Free Exercise claims, the court held the restrictions were reasonably related to legitimate penological interests under the Turner/O’Lone framework.
- On Equal Protection, the court held Baranowski failed to show intentional disparate treatment of similarly situated religious groups without a rational penological basis.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying counsel, an evidentiary hearing, or a jury trial where summary judgment was appropriate.

## Legal Principles

- Under RLUIPA, a prison policy that substantially burdens an inmate’s religious exercise is permissible only if it furthers a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of doing so.
- RLUIPA is construed broadly in favor of religious exercise but does not require accommodations that compromise prison order, safety, or feasible administration.
- Under the Free Exercise Clause in prison, a restriction is constitutional if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, considering rational connection, alternative means of religious exercise, and the impact of accommodation on prison resources and safety.
- Equal protection requires proof of intentional differential treatment of similarly situated persons; distinctions tied to neutral factors such as security, staffing, space, group size, and volunteer availability may supply a rational basis.
- Appointment of counsel for indigent civil rights litigants is discretionary and generally reserved for exceptional circumstances; summary judgment may be decided without an evidentiary hearing or jury trial absent a genuine dispute of material fact.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld TDCJ’s limits on Jewish services, chapel access, and provision of kosher meals because the record tied the restrictions to security, staffing, and space constraints, and it rejected equal protection and procedural challenges where Baranowski failed to show unlawful discrimination or any material factual dispute requiring trial.


Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112 (5th Cir. 2007)