ACLU urges court to protect Muslim inmate’s First Amendment rights
May 26, 2004
On Friday, May 28, at 8:30 a.m., ACLU of Alabama Cooperating Attorney David I. Schoen will argue a First Amendment case before the Eleventh Circuit at the Federal Courthouse in Montgomery on behalf of Richard E. Lake, an inmate at Donaldson Correctional Facility.
In September 2001, Mr. Lake, a practicing Muslim, led an Islamic service while incarcerated at St. Clair Correctional Facility in Springville. During that religious service, Mr. Lake, sparked by a passage in the Quran about repentance and making amends for one’s sins, led a discussion about reparations for African Americans.
Mr. Lake wrote questions and thoughts on a blackboard on the subject of reparations, a subject with particular relevance at the time since U.S. Congressman John Conyers had recently introduced, “The Reparations Study Bill” (H.B. 40). The discussion included references to the United Nations Charter and to other instances in which reparations were found to be necessary and appropriate, namely reparations paid by the German government to survivors of the Holocaust, reparations paid by the U.S. government to Native Americans for a number of abuses, and paid to Japanese citizens as compensation for internment during World War II. Mr. Lake urged members of the group to write to the United Nations and to request copies of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
On the following day, Correctional Officer, Shannon Henry, filed a disciplinary report against Mr. Lake, alleging that during the Islamic service held the day before, Mr. Lake violated Rule No. 62 of the Alabama Department of Corrections which prohibits “intentionally creating a security, safety or health hazard within a prison facility,” simply by engaging in a discussion about reparations within the context of the Islamic faith. In addition, Officer Henry accused Mr. Lake of “creating a security hazard by writing anti-American propaganda on the blackboard during Islamic services, attempting to influence participants in the service.”
“This is a clear instance in which the rights of an individual to speak freely have been infringed upon as a result of over-zealousness following the horrible attacks on September 11, 2001,” said Kimberly Parker, staff attorney for the ACLU of Alabama. “While we are all concerned about national security, I think that most people would agree that punishing someone for discussing legislation pending before Congress and the United Nations Charter is extreme and undermines those freedoms cherished by all Americans.”
A hearing was held based on Officer Henry’s disciplinary report. At that hearing, Officer Henry testified that he saw Mr. Lake write on the blackboard that the United States had violated the United Nations Charter and “was guilty of genocide,” a point of view he considered to be anti-American and therefore a security hazard. He acknowledged that there was no disturbance of any kind during the meeting. Individuals present at the meeting testified that the services were religious and educational, peaceful at all times and intellectually stimulating. They testified that the focus of the discussion centered on whether it is appropriate for African Americans to seek reparations through legislative means for the enslavement of Africans in the United States and was based on religious principles of repentance and making amends for sins.
Despite the absence of a disturbance of any kind resulting from the discussion of reparations, Mr. Lake was found guilty of a major disciplinary infraction and received a sentence of 20 days in disciplinary segregation, a loss of privileges for twenty days and a loss of incentive time. Mr. Lake was subsequently transferred to another facility.
With no funds to retain an attorney to defend his First Amendment right to speak freely and to practice his religion, Mr. Lake filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in November 2001; that complaint was dismissed nearly two years later. In response to a request for legal assistance, ACLU of Alabama cooperating attorney David I. Schoen appealed the District Court’s decision in 2003 on Mr. Lake’s behalf, arguing that Mr. Lake had raised significant constitutional claims in his complaint that are vitally important for all individuals who are incarcerated in Alabama.
“The danger this case presents is a grave one for people everywhere who might have a controversial point of view. The judge in this case not only ignored critically important First Amendment claims regarding a matter of significant public importance,” said David Schoen.
“He allowed with impunity the summary and unconstitutional punishment of Mr. Lake, punishment designed by prison officials to retaliate against this American citizen solely because he wanted to discuss with others their views on reparations for the horror of slavery. The judge may disagree with the man’s point of view, but the Constitution prohibits such punishment and Congress requires at least giving the man his day in court,” added Mr. Schoen.
###