No. 22-1809 ___________________________ Gregory Houston Holt, also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad; Rodney Martin; Wayde Earl Stewart

Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

Dexter Payne, Director, Arkansas Department of Corrections, in his official capacity only; Dale Reed, Chief Deputy Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, in his official capacity only; Joshua Mayfield, Administrator of Religious Services, Arkansas Department of Correction, in his official capacity only; Aundrea Culclager, Warden, Tucker Maximum Security Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction, in her official and individual capacities; Tommy Bourgeois, Chaplain, Tucker Maximum Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction, in his official and individual capacities

Defendants - Appellees

Danny Burl; Earl DeAngelo; Tom Bradshaw

Defendants William Straughn, Deputy Director of Institutions, (formerly, Warden, Cummins Unit)

Defendant - Appellee

Jim Babcock

Defendant

------------------------------ United States; The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Dr. Abdullah Ali

Amici on Behalf of Appellant(s) ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff ____________

Submitted: January 11, 2023 Filed: November 2, 2023 [Published] ____________ Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM.

Gregory Holt, Wade Stewart, and Rodney Martin sued the Arkansas Division of Corrections (ADC), alleging its policies violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. After a bench trial, the district court dismissed the complaint. It found that their religious beliefs were not sincerely held; that even if they were sincerely held, the policies did not substantially burden those beliefs; and that even if there was a substantial burden, the policies were the least restrictive means to further ADC’s compelling interests. Holt, Stewart, and Martin (collectively, Plaintiffs) appeal.

I.

Plaintiffs are in the custody of ADC. They believe that, as Muslim men, they are required by their religion to wear kufis at all times and to participate in congregational Jumu’ah prayer. ADC’s policies allow Plaintiffs to wear kufis only during religious services and provide only one Jumu’ah service, which is attended

-2- by Muslims as well as members of the Nation of Islam (NOI) and the Five-Percent Nation or Nation of Gods and Earths (NGE). Plaintiffs believe their faith prohibits them from participating in Jumu’ah prayer alongside NOI and NGE members. They allege that praying with these other groups invalidates their prayer and the Jumu’ah service. According to Plaintiffs, ADC’s single-service Jumu’ah policy compels them to violate their faith by forcing them to choose between either abstaining from Jumu’ah prayer or congregating with the NOI and NGE.

Plaintiffs sued ADC, alleging, in relevant part, that ADC’s policies impose a substantial burden on the exercise of their religion in violation of RLUIPA. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. After a bench trial, the district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that n