Opinion
No. 21-5592.
09-10-2021
The parties are directed to submit briefs that address whether petitioner adequately exhausted his audible prayer claim under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The parties are also directed to address whether petitioner has satisfied his burden under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) to demonstrate that a sincerely held religious belief has been substantially burdened by restrictions on either audible prayer or physical contact. The parties are further directed to address whether the government has satisfied its burden under RLUIPA to demonstrate its policy is the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling government interest. Finally, the parties are directed to address the type of equitable relief petitioner is seeking, the appropriate standard for this relief, and whether that standard has been met here. See Hill v. McDonough , 547 U.S. 573, 584, 126 S.Ct. 2096, 165 L.Ed.2d 44 (2006) (setting forth a four-factor test for equitable relief). The parties may address other relevant issues, avoiding repetition of discussion in prior briefing.