Last year, the Indiana American Civil Liberties Union feared the state’s religious freedom law could be used to discriminate against gay and lesbian Hoosiers. Now, the organization is using it in a lawsuit filed on behalf of a Muslim inmate.
The ACLU is suing the Boone County Sheriff’s office, accusing the jail staff of refusing to serve a halal diet to Gannon Thomas. Filed on Wednesday, the lawsuit alleges that the staff violated Thomas’ First Amendment rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, as well as his rights under Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The case is among early uses of the state’s religious freedom law, which Gov. Mike Pence signed in 2015 amid controversy that placed the state in the national spotlight because some opponents believed it could be twisted to discriminate against gay and lesbian Hoosiers.
But this is the type of lawsuit, some experts say, that uses the law as it was intended: to protect religious minorities from discrimination.
Thomas repeatedly asked the jail commander to be served food that adheres to a halal diet, which excludes pork and only includes other meat if it is slaughtered under certain conditions.
The commander told Thomas, the suit alleges, that the jail will only provide special dietary foods to inmates if it is a medical necessity. He said special diets based on choice, such as vegan, vegetarian or religious diets, were not provided, the suit says.
The jail continued to serve Thomas pork, as well as what he believed was non-halal meat, after he raised grievances, the lawsuit says. Thomas was booked in June on a charge of burglary and a probation violation.
Boone County Sheriff Mike Nielsen said in a statement that he was not aware of the complaint until he was contacted by IndyStar and said that by Thursday night, he had still not been served with an official complaint.
He also said Thomas’ claims of discrimination are “not accurate.”
“I was not even aware that there was an issue that one of our inmates had, about the type of food he was receiving because of his religious practices,” Nielsen said. “I am extremely disappointed that Inmate Gannon and Mr. Faulk would not have reached out to me personally to resolve this alleged issue before filing a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages against me as the Sheriff of Boone County.”
The ACLU of Indiana was an early critic of the law after Pence signed it, though the criticism focused on the intent of the legislators who drafted the bill.
“The timing of this legislation is all important to understanding its intent: The bill was introduced as a backlash reaction to achieving marriage equality for same-sex couples in Indiana,” wrote Jane Henegar, executive director of ACLU of Indiana, in a statement last year.
Ken Falk, legal director at the ACLU of Indiana, said protecting religious liberty in this manner is “entirely consistent with what we do,” noting that cases such as Thomas’ are the basis of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration act, passed in 1993.
Indiana’s law says the government cannot intrude on a person’s religious liberty unless it can prove a compelling interest in imposing that burden and do so in the least restrictive way. The suit asks a judge to grant an injunction that would order the jail to serve a halal diet to Thomas, as well as attorney fees, and any other proper relief.
It is also launching a constitutional argument, alleging that Thomas’ right to practice religion freely is violated.
For those who supported the law when Pence signed it, the jail lawsuit is business as usual.
“That’s what the law is for,” said Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana, an organization that bills itself as a protector against “destructive messages and harmful behaviors.”
Clark, though, was among those who clamored for the law to protect Christian business owners who may be asked to perform a business service in connection with a same-sex wedding. His organization campaigned for RFRA after a bill that would have added a constitutional same-sex marriage ban failed.
That’s a use of the law that Jennifer Drobac, a professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis, would consider improper.
In her reading of Thomas’ case, though, she said: “This is exactly the type of thing the law is supposed to protect.”
In some cases, Drobac said, courts have found that a religious request from an inmate could infringe upon security, such as carrying a ceremonial knife for religious purposes. But the law provides that the government should not violate sincerely held religious beliefs if the practice is not substantially burdensome.
Drobac noted that the suit does not say Thomas was demanding halal meat, meaning the jail staff could fulfill his request by providing a vegetarian diet.
“Serve him some rice and beans for crying out loud,” Drobac said.