Jama v. William K. Marshall III
Muna Jama v. William K. Marshall III, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons; Andre Matevousian, Regional Director of North Central Region, Federal Bureau of Prisons; Warden Lance Molis of FCI Waseca, in their official capacities only
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:23-cv-03075
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 15
In Muna Jama v. William K. Marshall III, Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan ruled that the Federal Bureau of Prisons violated a Muslim woman's religious freedom rights by taking and keeping uncovered photos of her without her hijab, and ordered all such photos destroyed.
Muslim women incarcerated in federal prisons who wear hijabs on religious grounds and have been or may be required to remove them for identification photographs; Federal Bureau of Prisons officials responsible for inmate identification policies.
What happened
In Muna Jama v. William K. Marshall III, Muna Jama is a Muslim woman incarcerated at FCI Waseca in Minnesota who wears a hijab — a headscarf covering the hair, ears, and neck — as a sincere requirement of her faith. When she arrived at the prison in 2019, officers threatened her with solitary confinement if she did not remove her hijab for an identification photo, then used that uncovered photo on her ID card, in a physical inmate identification book, and on her locker door, where it was regularly visible to others. After she complained in 2022, the prison took a new covered photo but continued using the uncovered one, and later offered only a partial fix — keeping the uncovered photo sealed and accessible only if she escaped — which Jama argued still violated her religious rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (a federal law prohibiting the government from substantially burdening a person's religious exercise without a compelling reason pursued in the least restrictive way possible).
Both sides moved for summary judgment — asking the court to decide the case based on undisputed facts without a trial. The government argued the case was moot because the prison had already restricted use of the uncovered photo, and that keeping one uncovered photo sealed for potential escape scenarios was a necessary security measure. Jama argued the uncovered photos still existed and burdened her religion, and that the government had not shown that keeping them was the least restrictive way to achieve its security goals.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan denied the government's motion and granted Jama's motion. The court found the case was not moot because the uncovered photos still exist and could be used again, and because the government had not committed to destroying them. On the merits, the court found that forcing Jama to be photographed without her hijab — under threat of solitary confinement — was a substantial burden on her religion. The court then found the government failed to show that keeping the uncovered photo was the least restrictive means of serving its security interest, noting that a covered photo actually better matches Jama's everyday appearance, that officers sometimes could not identify her from the uncovered photo, that the government does not require similar dual photos of other inmates who could also alter their appearance if they escaped, and that many other institutions do not require uncovered photos of Muslim women. The court ordered all uncovered photographs of Jama destroyed.
The detailed version
- Muna Jama v. William K. Marshall III, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP); Andre Matevousian, Regional Director of North Central Region, BOP; and Warden Michael Segal (substituted in place of Lance Molis listed in the case caption), in their official capacities. Case No. 23-CV-3075
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
Background
Plaintiff Muna Jama, a Muslim woman incarcerated at FCI Waseca in Minnesota, wears a hijab as a sincere religious requirement whenever she is in mixed-gender spaces outside her immediate family. She has worn a hijab since childhood and considers appearing uncovered in public, or being photographed uncovered with the photo accessible to non-family members, a serious violation of her faith and a deeply humiliating experience.
When Jama arrived at FCI Waseca in 2019, officers threatened her with solitary confinement if she refused to remove her hijab for an intake identification photo. The resulting uncovered photo was used on her ID card (which displayed her photo on a screen visible to others at the commissary), in the 'Bed Book' (a physical inmate identification book), and on her locker. After Jama filed a complaint with the BOP in July 2022, the prison took a new covered photo but also required a second uncovered photo. Jama later discovered the uncovered photo continued to be used in the same ways as before.
Jama filed suit in October 2023 asserting one claim: violation of 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 doing so is the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling governmental interest. She sought destruction of uncovered photos and security footage, a new ID with a covered photo, RFRA-compliant policies, and (against individual-capacity defendants) monetary damages.
In early 2024, Jama filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction (a court order requiring or prohibiting action before a full ruling). After negotiations, the prison adopted a 'dual photograph waiver': the uncovered photo would be sealed and accessible only if Jama escaped, and a covered photo would be used throughout the facility. Jama withdrew her preliminary injunction motion. The court had previously denied the government's motion to dismiss the injunctive relief claim but granted dismissal of individual-capacity defendants. The case then proceeded to cross-motions for summary judgment (motions asking the court to rule without a trial because the key facts are not disputed).
Jurisdiction — Mootness
The government argued the case was moot because it had restricted use of the uncovered photo and Jama was no longer subject to the intake policy. The court rejected this argument on two grounds. First, Jama's complaint specifically sought destruction of all uncovered photos, and the government had not destroyed the physical and digital copies or committed to doing so even after Jama's release. Because effectual relief — destruction of the photos — remained possible, the case was not moot. Second, the dual photograph waiver is subject to annual review and could be rescinded at any time; the government had also previously failed to keep the uncovered photo restricted as promised. The court found the government did not meet its 'heavy' burden to show no reasonable expectation that the challenged conduct would recur. (The court noted a January 2026 extension of the waiver through January 2027 did not change this analysis.)
Jurisdiction — Standing
Standing requires (1) injury in fact, (2) traceable to the defendant's conduct, and (3) redressable by a favorable ruling. The government argued Jama lacked standing because the dual photograph waiver addressed her injuries. The court disagreed, finding Jama's complaint was not limited to challenging the intake policy but also challenged the taking and retention of the uncovered photo — a harm that persists.
Merits — RFRA Analysis
Step 1 — Substantial burden: The plaintiff must show the government substantially burdened her religious exercise. A substantial burden exists when the government forces someone to act against religious beliefs by threatening sanctions or denial of important benefits. The court found no genuine dispute that Jama's religious exercise was substantially burdened: officers threatened her with solitary confinement if she did not remove her hijab to be photographed (forcing a choice between discipline and violating her beliefs), and the continued retention of the uncovered photo means a non-family male could potentially view it, independently burdening her beliefs.
Step 2 — Compelling interest / least restrictive means: Once a substantial burden is shown, the government must prove its action serves a compelling interest and is the least restrictive means of doing so. The parties did not dispute that prison safety and security — including inmate identification — is a compelling interest. The court assumed (without deciding) this interest was compelling. However, the court found the government failed to show that taking and retaining Jama's uncovered photo is the least restrictive means of advancing that interest, for several reasons:
- A covered photo actually better matches Jama's everyday appearance, since she always wears a hijab; officers at the facility sometimes could not identify her from the uncovered photo.
- The government's expert (Eichenlaub) argued an uncovered photo is needed to identify escapees but did not assert that law enforcement authorities have specifically requested uncovered photos of Muslim inmates or that the absence of an uncovered photo has ever impeded an escape investigation.
- The government does not require dual photos of non-Muslim inmates, even though any escapee could alter their appearance (e.g., by donning a headscarf as a disguise), showing the government does not treat this as a serious security concern in other contexts.
- It is highly speculative that Jama, who wears a hijab as a deeply held religious practice, would remove it to disguise herself if she escaped.
- The government failed to distinguish its system from the many institutions that do not require uncovered photos of Muslim women for identification, including Kentucky jails and the U.S. passport system (which permits head coverings for religious purposes).
The court held that no reasonable juror could find a safety or security benefit to retaining Jama's uncovered photograph sufficient to satisfy the least restrictive means standard.
Ruling
The court denied the government's Motion for Summary Judgment and granted Jama's Motion for Summary Judgment on her RFRA claim. The court ordered that all uncovered photographs of Jama be destroyed.
Note on parties
The case caption names Warden Lance Molis, but defense counsel is listed for Warden Michael Segal, suggesting a substitution occurred during litigation. The order itself refers to Segal. The caption has not been updated in the opinion text.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.