On April 10, Notre Dame Law School’s Lindsay and Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic filed an opening brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on behalf of a Muslim incarceree. Alongside Amy V. Doukoure of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Clinic represents Marvin Owens, a practicing Muslim, who was denied meal accommodations during the holy month of Ramadan while incarcerated at a county jail. Owens’s appeal challenges a trial court’s decision declining to award monetary damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which provides broad protections for the religious exercise of inmates.

Owens’s religious beliefs require him to observe Ramadan, considered one of the Five Pillars of Islam. During Ramadan, Muslims eat a morning meal known as suhoor before dawn, and then fast until their sunset iftar meal. Before the start of Ramadan in 2024, Owens made multiple requests for dietary accommodations to officials at Jackson County Jail in Michigan. Despite these requests, jail officials repeatedly provided Owens inadequate and untimely meals — substantially burdening Owens’s religious exercise.

Last year, during Ramadan, Owens sued the county jail officials under RLUIPA, seeking an order requiring officials to accommodate his religious exercise and monetary damages to remedy the harm he had already suffered. After Ramadan ended and Owens was transferred to another facility, the trial court dismissed Owens’s claim for an injunction preventing similar actions by the County in the future. The court also dismissed his claim for monetary relief, pointing to an earlier Sixth Circuit decision that erroneously concluded that RLUIPA does not authorize money damages.

Owens has appealed that decision. As the Clinic makes clear in its brief, RLUIPA allows inmates whose religious exercise was burdened to obtain all “appropriate relief”— including monetary damages — against state and local governments and their officials. Given the importance of the issue and the court’s earlier decisions that mistakenly deny damages, Owens has also asked the Sixth Circuit to review his appeal en banc. The appeal urges the Sixth Circuit to confirm the availability of damages, especially in light of a recent Supreme Court decision allowing monetary damages under an identical provision in the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“Mr. Owens went hungry for days because Jackson County Jail wouldn’t give him the food he needed during Ramadan. There’s really no question that RLUIPA expects courts to award damages to remedy harms like that,” said Meredith Kessler, staff attorney for the Religious Liberty Clinic. “That law was passed to restore sweeping protections for religious exercise, and the notion that there is nothing a court can do to help Mr. Owens now flies in the face of that goal.”

“Damages are often the only form of relief that can remedy religious harms,” said Domenic Canonico, a legal fellow for the Religious Liberty Clinic. “Because Mr. Owens is no longer at Jackson County Jail, a court order preventing that facility from violating RLUIPA again does him no good. It’s damages or nothing.”

CAIR-MI attorney Amy V. Doukoure reflected on the broader implications of the case. "Ensuring that incarcerated individuals can freely practice their sincerely held religious beliefs is fundamental to protecting religious liberty for all,” Doukoure said. “A system without accountability allows institutions to evade responsibility, leaving those behind bars without justice. The ability to seek damages is a crucial deterrent against future violations and a necessary step toward upholding constitutional and statutory protections for all faith communities."

Notre Dame Law students Veronica Maska, Annie Ortega, Leo Schlueter, Jessica Smith, and Dennis Wieboldt worked on the brief under the supervision of Kessler, Canonico, and Professor John Meiser, director of the Religious Liberty Clinic.

"Working on this case allowed us to play an active role in the Clinic's mission to protect religious liberty for people of all faiths, including those who are often overlooked," said Smith. "As students, we had the opportunity to take the lead in analyzing the issues and crafting the brief. It was an incredible learning experience."

“The opportunity to work closely with my classmates and professors to prepare an appellate brief has made me excited to be an advocate and confident in my ability to litigate. It has been such a rewarding experience, especially during Ramadan,” said Ortega.

“The opportunity to serve people in need like Mr. Owens — and to vindicate important religious rights for all people in the process — is an irreplaceable learning experience,” said Meiser. “It is imperative that we build up young attorneys with the skills and commitment to defend religious freedom for people of all faiths, and leading our students in causes like this is the very reason for the Notre Dame Religious Liberty Clinic. We are proud to work with CAIR to serve Mr. Owens, religious freedom, and the rule of law.”

About the Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Clinic

The Lindsay and Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic is a teaching law practice that educates, forms and prepares Notre Dame law students to become the rising generation of religious liberty leaders by training students in the practice of the law as they defend religious freedom for all people.

Under the guidance of law school faculty and staff, students work on a broad variety of legal matters to promote religious freedom on behalf of individuals and organizations of all beliefs—both domestically and abroad. The clinic represents clients from all faith traditions to promote not only the freedom for people to hold religious beliefs but also their fundamental right to express those beliefs and to live according to them. Learn more about the work of the Clinic here.

Originally published by Notre Dame Law School at religiousliberty.nd.edu on April 11, 2025.