Kidney beans and religious freedom are the centerpieces of a lawsuit that could be headed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on behalf of a man who served time in a West Virginia federal prison.
Attorneys for Marvin Damon, who was a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution in McDowell County, are asking the appeals court to overturn a lower court's dismissal of a case in which Damon alleges his constitutional rights were violated.
At issues is the fact that Damon, a member of the Nation of Islam, was served a meal that substituted kidney beans for the navy beans called for by his religion.
Representing Damon, the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center at Northwestern University School of Law, in conjunction with the ACLU and its West Virginia chapter, believe the appeals court should weigh in on the issue.
"Some would dismiss this case as nothing more than a hill of beans," the attorneys wrote in an amicus brief, "but it in fact presents an important question that strikes at the heart of religious liberty and has divided the Circuits: Does the Prison Litigation Reform Act prevent an incarcerated plaintiff from recovering compensatory damages for violations of Free Exercise Rights that do not result in physical injury?"
In relation to Damon's case, the lower court said a prisoner cannot bring a claim for the deprivation of religious rights because prohibiting the practice of a person's faith is nothing more than a "mental or emotional injury."
According to the amicus brief, eight federal circuit courts have ruled on the question of whether the prison reform act requires physical injuries in order to claim damages. Four circuit courts ruled physical injury is required to claim mental or emotional injury while four other courts have ruled physical injury is not required to claim a violation of the First Amendment.
"First Amendment violations are not usually accompanied by physical injuries and a violation of the free exercise of religion is not a mere emotional injury," said David Shapiro, clinical assistant professor of law and attorney at the MacArthur Justice Center. "It is a violation of a fundamental liberty granted by the Constitution to all of us, including people in prison."
Jamie Lynn Crofts, an attorney with the ACLU of West Virginia, argues the case's outcome could help settle the issue, which she said could end up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court at some point.
"The outcome of the Damon case will have profound implications for the ability of men and women in prison to practice their faith, for the vast majority of Free Exercise infringements - forbidding worship, prohibiting access to religious texts, refusing visits with clergy, and banning sacred objects, to name a few - inflict an injury not to the body but to liberty and conscience," said Crofts.
Reach Joel Ebert at 304-348-4843, joel.ebert@dailymailwv.com, or follow @joelebert29 on Twitter.