Native American Council, etc., et al. v. Weber, et al., No. 13-1401 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseSouth Dakota Native American inmates filed suit against defendants claiming that a tobacco ban substantially burdened the exercise of their religious beliefs in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-1(a). The court concluded that the record amply showed that the inmates have satisfied their burden. That some Native Americans practicing the Lakota religion would consider red willow bark a sufficient alternative to tobacco did not undermine the decision of the district court. Even assuming that defendants' ban on tobacco furthered compelling government interests in security and order, the ban was not the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. The court concluded that the scope of the district court's remedial orders extended no further than necessary to remedy the violation of inmates' rights under RLUIPA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of injunctive relief in all respects.
Court Description: Prisoner case - Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. In action challenging the South Dakota Department of Corrections' policy prohibiting tobacco use by Native American inmates during religious activities, the district court did not err in concluding the ban violated the inmates' rights under the Act as the ban substantially burdened exercise of the inmates' religious practices and beliefs; fact that some practitioners of the Lakota religion would consider red willow bark a sufficient alternative to tobacco does not undermine the district court's decision; even if the ban served compelling government interests in security and order, a ban on tobacco use was not the least restrictive means of achieving those interests, and the district court did not err in enjoining the policy; the scope of the district court's remedial order went no further than was necessary to remedy the violation, and the remedial order is affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.