Eighth Circuit Upholds Unconstitutionality of Faith-Based Prison Program
A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, including Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, sitting by designation, upheld the substance of an opinion by Chief District Judge Robert W. Pratt of the Southern District of Iowa that concluded that a faith-based inmate rehabilitation program funded through government payments violated the Establishment Clauses the U.S. and Iowa Constitutions.
In Americans United v. Prison Fellowship Ministries, the plaintiffs alleged that inmates participating in the faith-based program were given better treatment and privileges (including a potentially faster track to parole) than other inmates, and that staff of the organization running the program were "frequently hostile to other faiths," according to the Des Moines Register. The treatment program, known as the InnerChange Freedom Initiative, is sponsored by Prison Fellowship Ministries, which was founded by Charles W. Colson.
The Circuit Court upheld the District Court's conclusion that, during 2000-2004, "religious indoctrination [could] be reasonably attributed to Iowa's funding" and that access to the program "was not allocated on neutral criteria and was not available on a nondiscriminatory basis" and thus "the direct aid to InnerChange violated the Establishment Clauses of the United States and Iowa Constitutions." The Court further agreed with the District Court's conclusion that, during 2005-2007, when the state changed the method of reimbursement to a per diem structure in an attempt to classify the program as one receiving indirect aid, an inmate would have "had no genuine and independent private choice [as to participating in a program] because he had only one option" and thus this too violated the Establishment Clauses of the United States and Iowa Constitutions.
The panel only disagreed with the District Court's order requiring InnerChange to repay the state funds received under all contracts, reasoning that because "specific statutes, presumptively valid, authorized the InnerChange funding," the District Court should not have "granted recoupment for services rendered before its order" regarding the constitutionality of the program, although "the defendants cannot rely on the legality of the program and cannot retain any funds for services rendered after the district court's order."
Coverage and analysis of the constitutionality of the program can be found in this 2006 article by Marty Lederman on Balkanization.(h/t ReligionClause)