## Facts

- Henry Unseld Washington, a Pennsylvania state prisoner, practiced a religion he founded called the “Children of the Sun Church,” which teaches Pan-Afrikanism.
- Washington alleged his faith required a daily ritual of reading four different Afro-centric books to educate himself in doctrine and teach others.
- Pennsylvania prison officials enforced a policy limiting inmates to ten books in their cells, citing security, hygiene, and safety.
- During a cell transfer, officials reduced Washington’s in-cell books to ten and required him to mail out, destroy, or donate the excess to the prison library.
- Library rules permitted only one library trip per week, limiting Washington’s ability to access any donated books.
- Washington sued under RLUIPA (and also asserted constitutional claims via § 1983), alleging the ten-book limit prevented compliance with his religious reading ritual.
- The district court dismissed Washington’s RLUIPA claim; Washington appealed.

## Issues

1. What standard governs whether a prison policy imposes a “substantial burden” on an inmate’s “religious exercise” under RLUIPA?
2. Under that standard, did the ten-book in-cell limitation, in combination with restricted library access, substantially burden Washington’s religious exercise?
3. If a substantial burden existed, did prison officials prove the policy furthered a compelling governmental interest and was the least restrictive means of doing so?

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the dismissal of the RLUIPA claim and remanded for further proceedings under the correct standard.
- The court defined “substantial burden” to include government action that puts substantial pressure on an adherent to modify behavior and violate beliefs, or that forces a choice between religious compliance and significant adverse consequences.
- Applying that definition, the court held the ten-book rule could substantially burden Washington’s religious exercise by making his daily four-book ritual impracticable.
- The court concluded officials had not shown the ten-book limit was the least restrictive means of advancing asserted interests in safety, security, order, and hygiene.

## Legal Principles

- RLUIPA prohibits imposing a substantial burden on an institutionalized person’s religious exercise unless the government shows the burden furthers a compelling interest and is the least restrictive means. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a).
- A “substantial burden” exists when government action places substantial pressure on a religious adherent to modify conduct and violate beliefs, including by forcing a choice between compliance with religious precepts and meaningful adverse consequences.
- Courts evaluate the actual effect of a policy on the claimant’s religious exercise, not merely whether the policy is facially neutral or generally applicable.
- Once a substantial burden is shown, the government bears the burden to satisfy strict scrutiny; generalized institutional concerns are insufficient where less restrictive approaches appear feasible.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that limiting an inmate to ten books in his cell, combined with restricted library access, could substantially burden religious exercise under RLUIPA and that prison officials did not carry their burden to show the rigid numerical cap was the least restrictive means of serving compelling penological interests, warranting reversal and remand.


Washington v. Klem, 497 F.3d 272 (3d Cir. 2007)