Jama v. William K. Marshall III

Background

Plaintiff Muna Jama is a Muslim woman incarcerated at FCI Waseca, a federal prison in Minnesota. As a matter of sincere religious belief, she wears a hijab — a headscarf covering her hair, ears, and neck — at all times when in mixed-gender spaces outside her immediate family. She has worn a hijab since childhood and has never willingly appeared in public without one. Being photographed without a hijab and having that photo accessible to strangers constitutes, in her faith, a serious religious transgression and a deeply humiliating experience.

When Jama arrived at the prison in 2019, officers threatened her with solitary confinement if she did not remove her hijab for an identification photo. She was photographed without her hijab, and the uncovered photo was used on her ID card, in the facility's "Bed Book" (a physical book used to identify inmates), and on the front of her locker. Each time she used her ID card at the commissary, the uncovered photo appeared on a screen visible to nearby persons.

In July 2022, Jama filed an internal complaint with the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Officers then brought her in for a new photo with her hijab — but also required a second, uncovered photo. The uncovered photo continued to be displayed and used in the same ways as before.

Jama filed suit in October 2023 under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, which prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening a person's religious exercise unless the burden serves a compelling governmental interest pursued through the least restrictive means. Her complaint sought destruction of all uncovered photographs and security footage, a new ID card with a covered photo, RFRA-compliant identification policies, and monetary damages from individual-capacity defendants.

Procedural History

In January 2024, Jama filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction (a court order requiring immediate action before the case is resolved). After negotiations, the parties agreed to a "dual photograph waiver": the prison would keep the uncovered photo sealed in an envelope or restricted digital format, accessible only if Jama escaped, and would use a covered photo for all routine facility purposes. In exchange, Jama withdrew her preliminary injunction motion.

The Bureau of Prisons then moved to dismiss Jama's claim for injunctive relief and separately moved to dismiss claims against individual-capacity defendants. The court denied the motion to dismiss the injunctive relief claim but granted dismissal of the individual-capacity claims. The court previously found that the dual photograph waiver could not prevent recurrence of the challenged conduct and did not remedy the BOP's continued retention of the uncovered photo.

Both sides then filed cross-motions for summary judgment — motions asking the court to rule in their favor without a trial, on the grounds that there are no genuinely disputed facts requiring a jury.

Jurisdiction: Mootness and Standing

Mootness

Defendants argued the case was moot — meaning there was no longer a live controversy for the court to resolve — because the dual photograph waiver restricted use of the uncovered photo and because Jama is no longer subject to the intake photograph policy she originally challenged.

The court rejected this argument. First, the uncovered photo still exists: Defendants have not destroyed the physical and digital copies and have not committed to doing so even after Jama's release. Since the court could still grant meaningful relief (ordering destruction of the photo), the controversy remains live. Second, the dual photograph waiver is subject to annual review and could be rescinded at any time. The court noted that Defendants had already failed once to protect Jama's uncovered photo — after being told it was restricted to confidential records, she later discovered it was still being used on her ID card, in the Bed Book, and on her locker. Given the possibility of rescission and the BOP's prior failure to follow its own commitments, the court found Defendants had not met their heavy burden to show there was no reasonable expectation that the challenged conduct would recur.

Standing

Defendants argued Jama lacked standing — the legal right to bring this suit — because she was no longer subject to the intake photograph policy. The court found this mischaracterized the complaint. Jama's complaint was not limited to challenging the intake policy; it also challenged the taking and ongoing retention of the uncovered photo. Because that harm persists and a favorable ruling could redress it, Jama has standing.

Merits: RFRA Analysis

Substantial Burden

RFRA prohibits the government from imposing a "substantial burden" on religious exercise. A substantial burden exists when the government forces a person to act in violation of her religious beliefs by threatening sanctions or punishment for noncompliance.

The court found Jama clearly satisfied this standard. Defendants more than once threatened her with solitary confinement if she did not remove her hijab to be photographed. Any policy requiring Jama to remove her hijab forces her to choose between disciplinary punishment and violating her religious beliefs — a textbook substantial burden. The ongoing retention of the uncovered photo also constitutes a substantial burden because it means a non-familial male could potentially view the photo, which itself violates Jama's religious beliefs.

Compelling Interest and Least Restrictive Means

Once a plaintiff establishes a substantial burden, the government must show it has a compelling interest and is pursuing it through the least restrictive means available — applied specifically to the individual claimant, not in general. The parties did not dispute that the BOP has a compelling interest in prison safety and security, including identifying inmates. The court therefore assumed (without deciding) that a compelling interest existed.

The court found, however, that Defendants failed to show that retaining Jama's uncovered photo was the least restrictive means of serving that interest. The court's reasoning:

- A covered photo better serves the identification interest. Jama wears her hijab every day. A photo showing her as she actually appears is more accurate for identification purposes. In fact, officers in the facility reportedly had difficulty identifying Jama using her uncovered photo precisely because she always appeared in her hijab.

- The expert's assertions were unsupported. Defendants' expert claimed an uncovered photo is necessary for identifying escapees but did not assert that law enforcement agencies had specifically requested uncovered photos of Muslim inmates or that the absence of such photos had ever impeded an escapee search. The court cited Supreme Court precedent (Holt v. Hobbs) requiring courts not to defer to prison officials' mere say-so and to hold the government to its burden.

- Inconsistent application. The BOP does not require non-Muslim inmates to be photographed both with and without headwear, even though any inmate could use a headscarf as a disguise after escaping. The court found it highly speculative that Jama — who wears a hijab as a deeply held religious obligation — would remove it to disguise herself.

- Other institutions manage without uncovered photos. The court noted that other jurisdictions have settled cases or adopted policies permitting head coverings in booking photos (citing a CAIR settlement with a Kentucky jail), and that the U.S. Department of State permits head coverings worn for religious purposes in passport photos.

Because Defendants failed to show that retaining Jama's uncovered photo was the least restrictive means of serving their compelling interest, the court found no genuine dispute on the merits of the RFRA claim in Jama's favor.

Disposition

The court denied Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and granted Jama's Motion for Summary Judgment. The court ordered that all uncovered photographs of Jama be destroyed.