Religious Rights and Programs in Federal Prison

By Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., and Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA

Federal prisoners can attend religious services, keep religious property, eat a certified religious diet, observe holy days and fast days, and meet with a minister of record — and when the Bureau of Prisons burdens any of that, the governing statute is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, not RLUIPA. That distinction is the single most common error on this subject, and it matters: RLUIPA does not apply to federal prisons. This page sets out what the Bureau’s current policy actually provides, reproduces the authorized religious property tables in full, and explains the legal standard and the route for challenging a denial.

Religious programs in federal prison: the facts

Question	Answer	Source
Governing policy	PS 5360.10, Religious Beliefs and Practices (Oct. 24, 2022)	Rescinded PS 5360.09 CN-1 (6/12/2015)
Governing regulation	28 C.F.R. §§ 548.10–548.20	—
Governing statute for federal prisoners	Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq.	RLUIPA applies to state and local institutions, not federal
The legal standard	Government may substantially burden religious exercise only if the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means	42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b)
Must you declare a religion?	No. “The Bureau of Prisons does not require an inmate to profess a religious preference”	28 C.F.R. § 548.10(c)
Changing your religious preference	In writing to the Chaplain, at any time, effected in a timely fashion	28 C.F.R. § 548.10(c)
Congregate services	Authorized weekly congregate services available to all, except in SHU, SMU, and undesignated at the Federal Transfer Center	PS 5360.10 at p. 3
Religious diet program	The Alternative Diet Program — two components: no-flesh self-selection from the main line, and certified processed foods (halal and kosher)	PS 5360.10 at p. 17
Ceremonial meals	One per person per calendar year	PS 5360.10 at p. 19
Religious property value cap	No religious item may have a monetary value greater than $100	PS 5360.10 at p. 11
Religious headwear	Three items authorized; one item of ceremonial headwear	PS 5360.10 at p. 12
Time off work for holy days	Not limited to one per year	PS 5360.10 at p. 15
Requesting a new or unfamiliar practice	Form BP-A0822, New or Unfamiliar Religious Components Questionnaire	PS 5360.10 at p. 8
Challenging a denial	The administrative remedy program, then federal court	28 C.F.R. §§ 542.10 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)

Verified against PS 5360.10, the current United States Code, and the four decisions cited below, September 2026. A Program Statement is Bureau policy — its instruction to its own staff — not law. The regulations in 28 C.F.R. part 548 bind the Bureau; RFRA is the statute a court applies.

RFRA, not RLUIPA — and why the difference matters

Almost every page about prison religion conflates two statutes. Getting this right is the first thing a federal prisoner or their family needs, because it determines which law a court will apply and, in some circuits, whether a claim survives at all.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act governs federal prisoners. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a) provides that “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability,” subject to the exception in subsection (b). RFRA defines “government” to include “a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting under color of law) of the United States” (42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-2(1)). The Bureau of Prisons is a federal agency. RFRA reaches it.

RLUIPA does not. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act uses a different definition. Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(4)(A), “government” means “a State, county, municipality, or other governmental entity created under the authority of a State,” any branch, department, agency, instrumentality or official of such an entity, and “any other person acting under color of State law.” RLUIPA’s substantive protection for institutionalized persons, at 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1, applies where the burden is imposed in a program receiving federal financial assistance or affecting interstate commerce — a Spending and Commerce Clause structure built to reach state prisons.

Courts have said so directly. In Rogers v. United States, 696 F. Supp. 2d 472 (W.D. Pa. 2010), the court held that “federal courts have held that RLUIPA ‘only applies to state and local governments, not a federal prison.'” And in Sample v. Lappin, 424 F. Supp. 2d 187 (D.D.C. 2006) — a case about a Jewish federal prisoner’s access to sacramental wine — the court confirmed that after City of Boerne v. Flores struck RFRA down as applied to the states, “RFRA remains valid as applied to the federal government.”

The reason this history exists: RFRA was enacted in 1993 to apply to everyone, the Supreme Court held in 1997 that Congress lacked power to enforce it against the states, and Congress responded in 2000 by passing RLUIPA under different constitutional authority to cover state and local institutions. What was left of RFRA still covers the federal government. The D.C. Circuit put it plainly in Webman v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 441 F.3d 1022 (D.C. Cir. 2006): “Congress does, however, have the power to enforce RFRA against the federal government.”

The standard is the same either way, which is why the confusion persists. In Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (2015), the Supreme Court — deciding a state prisoner’s RLUIPA challenge to a grooming policy — noted that RLUIPA “mirrors RFRA” and “allows prisoners ‘to seek religious accommodations pursuant to the same standard as set forth in RFRA.'” So Holt is genuinely instructive for a federal prisoner even though it is not a federal-prisoner case. But the caption on the complaint has to be right.

One practical difference does turn on the distinction. Webman held that RFRA “does not waive the federal government’s sovereign immunity for damages” — the phrase “appropriate relief” in 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(c) was not the unequivocal waiver required. Equitable and injunctive relief remains available. Anyone planning a federal religious-exercise claim should understand from the outset that damages cannot be recovered from the federal government itself; the Supreme Court has since held, however, that RFRA allows money damages, when appropriate, against federal officials sued in their individual capacities. Whether and how that plays out in a particular circuit is a question for counsel on the specific facts.

What the standard actually requires

Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b), government may substantially burden religious exercise “only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person — (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” “Demonstrates” is a defined term meaning the burdens of both going forward with the evidence and of persuasion (42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-2(3)).

Sample v. Lappin set out the elements: “a plaintiff establishes a prima facie claim under RFRA by proving the following three elements: (1) a substantial burden imposed by the federal government on a (2) sincere (3) exercise of religion.” Once that is shown, the burden shifts to the government.

“Substantial burden” is the fought-over element. Sample described it as existing “where the state conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or where it denies such a benefit because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.” Rogers recorded the Third Circuit’s two-part formulation — a person forced to choose between following a religious precept and forfeiting a benefit otherwise available, or substantial pressure to modify behavior and violate beliefs — while also noting that “the denial of a single meal has been held to not constitute a substantial burden.” Isolated incidents generally do not clear the bar; sustained denials of a practice are a different matter. The burden of proving substantial interference “rests on the religious adherent.”

“Least restrictive means” is demanding. Holt v. Hobbs described it as “exceptionally demanding,” requiring the government to show “that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting part[y],” and holding that “if a less restrictive means is available for the Government to achieve its goals, the Government must use it.” The Court also gave prisoners a concrete evidentiary tool: what other prisons do matters. “That so many other prisons allow inmates to grow beards while ensuring prison safety and security suggests that the Department could satisfy its security concerns through a means less restrictive,” and where many institutions offer an accommodation, “a prison must, at a minimum, offer persuasive reasons why it believes that it must take a different course.”

Sample applied the same logic to the Bureau: “the government cannot meet its burden to prove least restrictive means unless it has actually considered and rejected the efficacy of less restrictive measures before adopting the challenged practice,” and rejected as “speculative, unsupported by the current record, and neither compelling nor sufficient” the government’s assertion that accommodating a request would create an “administrative nightmare.”

The Bureau’s own policy uses the same vocabulary, which is useful. PS 5360.10 requires Chaplaincy Services to “provide guidance on the accommodation of religious practices and assess the least restrictive alternatives,” commits the Bureau to “provide accommodations for religious practices considering the least restrictive alternatives,” and requires that a restricted practice resume “only upon completion of a thorough evaluation of the practice with respect to compelling government interests and the least restrictive alternatives” in consultation with the Central Office Chaplaincy Services Branch (PS 5360.10 at pp. 1–3). A denial that never engaged with a less restrictive alternative is inconsistent with the Bureau’s own instruction as well as with the statute.

Applied Insight — Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA, Managing Director: The record wins these, and the record is built at the institution long before anything reaches a court. What we look for is whether the request was specific, whether it was in writing, whether the person explained the religious basis rather than just the request, whether the institution ever identified an alternative and rejected it, and whether the administrative remedy was carried all the way to the General Counsel. A file with a BP-A0822, a chaplain’s interview, and a full BP-9/BP-10/BP-11 chain is a different case from a file with a verbal request and a shrug.

What the Bureau must provide

The baseline commitment is at 28 C.F.R. § 548.10(a): “The Bureau of Prisons provides inmates of all faith groups with reasonable and equitable opportunities to pursue religious beliefs and practices, consistent with the security and orderly running of the institution and the Bureau of Prisons.”

Chaplains. Institution chaplains manage religious activities and are “available upon request to provide pastoral care and counseling to inmates through group programs and individual services” (28 C.F.R. § 548.12). All are full-time Bureau chaplains with “verifiable religious credentials and current religious endorsements,” employed to plan and supervise all Chapel programming, to have physical access to all areas of the institution, to lead worship in their own tradition, to provide accommodations for religious practices consistent with security, and to serve as the subject matter expert advising the Warden (PS 5360.10 at p. 6). Where chaplains are unavailable because of training, military duty, days off or leave, “non-Chapel staff may be utilized to ensure the constitutional religious rights of inmates are maintained.” Support staff may assist but “may not perform pastoral duties reserved for professional Chaplains.”

Services. “Opportunities for religious activities are open to the entire inmate population, without regard to race, color, nationality, or ordinarily, creed” (28 C.F.R. § 548.10(b)). Scheduled Chapel activities “should be accommodated as are other institutional program disciplines (e.g., Psychology and Education/Recreation),” and “[o]rdinarily, scheduled Chapel services should not be cancelled unless necessary during institutional emergencies.” Authorized weekly congregate services are available to everyone except those in Special Housing Units, Special Management Units, and undesignated people at the Federal Transfer Center (PS 5360.10 at p. 3). The Warden may limit participation in a particular activity to people with the relevant religious preference where the nature of the practice — fasts, headwear, work proscription, ceremonial meals — indicates a religious need for the limitation.

Space. “Institutions shall have space designated for the conduct of religious activities” (28 C.F.R. § 548.13(c)), sufficient to accommodate all religious groups fairly and equitably, and Chaplaincy Services areas “will be neutral and suitable for use by different faith groups.” The area must include office space for each chaplain, storage with faith-specific lockers for religious accoutrements, and nearby lavatory facilities. An outside worship area “will be maintained in a suitable, secure, and private location, except in institutions where building design or security considerations would prohibit its construction,” content-neutral and large enough for all faith traditions that use outdoor space (PS 5360.10 at pp. 9–10).

Equity. “No one may harass inmates regarding their religious beliefs, nor coerce inmates into changing their religious affiliations. Attendance at all religious activities is voluntary and, unless otherwise specifically determined by the Warden, open to all” (28 C.F.R. § 548.15).

Scheduling and program relief. “The Warden may relieve an inmate from an institution program or assignment if a religious activity is also scheduled at that time” (28 C.F.R. § 548.13(b)). Program schedules must be posted in English and Spanish on bulletin boards clearly visible to the population.

Religious preference — and why you never have to declare one

This is a genuinely protective rule that people are often not told about. “The Bureau of Prisons does not require an inmate to profess a religious preference. An inmate may designate any or no religious preference at his/her initial team screening. By notifying the Chaplain in writing, an inmate may request to change this designation at any time, and the change will be effected in a timely fashion” (28 C.F.R. § 548.10(c)).

The Bureau records a preference code at initial classification, and the policy is explicit that these are administrative categories rather than theological ones: they “are umbrella categories and not exhaustive of all religious affiliations,” designed “to aid Chaplains in religious program management and scheduling” (PS 5360.10 at pp. 5–6).

There is a trade-off, and it should be stated plainly. Staff refer to the recorded preference history when deciding whether someone may participate in a faith-specific activity, and “[i]nmates who do not declare a religious preference or indicate membership in a different faith group may be restricted from participating in religious activities that are only for members of that faith.” The chaplain also “will monitor patterns of changes in the inmate’s declarations of religious preference to prevent abuse.” So the right to decline a designation is real, and so is the practical consequence of declining one, or of changing it repeatedly. It is worth thinking about before initial classification — see our page on the first day in prison.

Religious diets

The Bureau “provides inmates requesting a religious diet reasonable and equitable opportunity to observe their religious dietary practice … through religious diet menus” (28 C.F.R. § 548.20(a)). The program is called the Alternative Diet Program and it has exactly two components (PS 5360.10 at p. 17):

1. Self-selection from the main line, which includes a no-flesh option and access to the salad or hot bar where one is part of the Food Service program. Where meals are served in prepared trays, local procedures establish how the no-flesh component is provided.
2. Nationally recognized, religiously certified processed foods — the policy names halal and kosher. “These meals are prepackaged and double wrapped in order to preserve the integrity of the religious certification.”

Ordinarily the religious diet is served and consumed in the dining hall. Our page on what you eat in prison covers general food service, and the food service explainer covers the Bureau’s menu policy.

How to get on it. Submit a written request to Chaplaincy Services articulating the religious motivation (28 C.F.R. § 548.20(b)). The chaplain “will ordinarily conduct an oral interview,” documented on form BP-A1142, Religious Diet Interview, “within two working days of receiving the request.” The person reviews and signs the completed interview form and agrees to abide by the program’s requirements; a refusal to sign is documented. The chaplaincy team then reviews the responses “to determine how to best accommodate the inmate’s stated religious dietary needs through the least restrictive means analysis.” Approval is documented on form BP-A0700, Notification of Inmate Religious Diet Accommodation, filed in the central file.

Timing. Under normal operations the chaplain enters approved participants on the religious diet participant list within 24 hours of approval, and Food Service begins serving the certified processed food line “within two days” of that notification. Chaplains and Food Service staff monitor the list daily “to ensure all eligible inmates are served religious diet meals with minimal delay upon intake or re-designation” (PS 5360.10 at p. 18). Someone not approved for the certified food line “may request a re-interview at three-month intervals.”

Removal and reinstatement — the part that catches people. Withdrawal must be in writing to the chaplain. The chaplain may withdraw approval where it is documented that the person violated the terms of the agreement they signed. Then: “In order to preserve the integrity and orderly operation of the religious diet program and to prevent fraud, inmates who withdraw (or are removed) may not be immediately reestablished back into the program. The process of re-approving a religious diet … ordinarily may extend up to thirty days. Repeated withdrawals (voluntary or otherwise), however, may result in inmates being subjected to a waiting period of up to one year” (28 C.F.R. § 548.20(c)).

Two specific behaviors trigger removal: being “observed eating from the main line,” and purchasing or consuming non-certified foods from the commissary. Notice is given on form BP-A0820, Notification of Inmate Religious Diet Violation. The policy frames removal as non-punitive — it “provides an opportunity for the inmate and staff to reevaluate whether the program meets the inmate’s religious dietary needs” — and reinstatement follows a fresh oral interview. But a one-year waiting period after repeated withdrawals is a serious consequence, and it is imposed administratively rather than through the disciplinary process.

Ceremonial meals and fasts

Ceremonial meals. The chaplain “may arrange for on annual ceremonial or commemorative meal for each religious group. An inmate may attend one religious ceremonial meal in a calendar year” (PS 5360.10 at p. 19). These are served in Food Service unless the Warden authorizes otherwise, and “[t]o maintain equity in menu design, all meals must be prepared from food items on the institution master menus.”

Chaplains may use a small portion of the annual Chaplaincy Services budget to acquire traditional or ritual foods supplementing the mainline meal. The equity formula is set locally by dividing the appropriated funds designated for the purpose by the total number of participants across all ceremonial meals for the fiscal year — and “[t]o prevent waste or abuse, the total amount per faith group is to be no less than $10 and not greater than $200.”

The deadlines matter. A person must submit an Inmate Request to Staff to the chaplain 60 days before the ceremonial meal to request ritual or traditional foods, and the chaplain consults with the Food Service Administrator to develop the menu “at least 45 days before the scheduled date of the observance” so that ordering and preparation can happen (PS 5360.10 at pp. 19–20). Miss the 60-day window and the food will not be there. Food Service is the only permitted source; ceremonial foods “may not be donated” and “may not be catered.”

Two Program Statements govern that request, and it is worth keeping them apart. What must be asked for, and when, comes from PS 5360.10 (24 Oct. 2022), which names the BP-A0148 by form number and sets the 60-day and 45-day lead times. How the request is submitted comes from the later PS 5511.08, effective 19 March 2026, under which a request to staff goes through the electronic Request to Staff Service in TRULINCS — one per department per day, with a response ordinarily completed within 30 calendar days if warranted — and the paper BP-A0148 is reserved for people the Warden exempts and for anyone housed in a Protective Custody Unit (PS 5511.08 at p. 2). The chaplaincy deadline is unchanged; only the channel is.

Fasts. The policy distinguishes two kinds. For a public fast — “one observed by many faith adherents” — Food Service “will provide a meal nutritionally equivalent to the meal(s) missed,” and accommodations may include bagged meals for times when Food Service is normally closed. For a personal fast, “no special accommodations need to be made for the meal(s) missed,” and requests for meals afterward are decided case by case “applying sound correctional and pastoral judgment” (PS 5360.10 at p. 19). The Central Office Chaplaincy Services Branch maintains the list of recognized public fast days and holy days.

Religious property: what you may keep and wear

This is the part of the policy people most often need in writing, and it is genuinely detailed. Under 28 C.F.R. § 548.16(a), religious property “includes but is not limited to rosaries and prayer beads, oils, prayer rugs, phylacteries, medicine pouches, and religious medallions,” and becomes part of personal property subject to normal safety and security considerations.

The limits: personal religious items may not be purchased with appropriated funds; they are bought from commissary or through an approved catalog source using form BP-A0200, Special Purpose Order Request – Inmate; no religious item may have a monetary value greater than $100; and personal property may not be stored in the Chapel (PS 5360.10 at p. 11). Our inmate personal property explainer covers the general property rules.

Under § 548.16(b), a person “ordinarily shall be allowed to wear or use personal religious items and ceremonial garments during religious services, ceremonies, and meetings in the Chapel,” and on request “the Warden should allow the wearing or use of religious items throughout the institution,” unless inconsistent with security, safety or good order.

Religious headwear — worn throughout the institution

Three items are authorized. Headwear worn throughout the institution may not contain graphics or writing and may not be altered.

Religion	Headwear	Color
Jewish	Yarmulke	Black or white
Moorish	Kufi	Black or white crochet
Muslim	Kufi	Black or white crochet
Nation of Islam	Kufi	Black or white crochet
Rastafarian	Crown	Multi-colored (red, yellow, green threads running through a black cap)
Sikh	Turban	White
Native American	Headband	Multi-colored

Source: PS 5360.10 at p. 12. Crowns may not have a bill. Headbands “can be worn only in a circle, covering the forehead but not the crown of the head.” This headwear is authorized throughout the institution “including the SHU, when consistent with security.”

Ceremonial headwear — Chapel only

One item is authorized. These are not worn to and from the Chapel or anywhere else in the institution.

Religion	Headwear	Color
Moorish Temple	Fez	Red
Odinist/Ásatrú	Hlath (Hlad)	Brown with one or more embroidered runes

Source: PS 5360.10 at p. 12. The hlath “must contain embroidered runes. Plain headbands without runes are not authorized.”

Religious attire for women

Three scarves or head wraps are authorized where consistent with security, for women who have expressed a religious belief in wearing them. The policy states expressly that “[t]he above list is not all-inclusive.”

Religion	Attire	Color
Jewish	Scarf	Black or off-white
Moorish	Scarf	Black or off-white
Muslim	Hijab	Black or off-white
Nation of Islam	Scarf	Black or off-white
Rastafarian	Scarf	Black or off-white
Orthodox Christian	Scarf	Black or off-white
Native American	Headband	Multi-colored

Source: PS 5360.10 at p. 13. Separately, “[j]umper dresses are generally approved for women who seek to wear loose-fitting clothing as an aspect of their religious exercise, so long as the security of the institution is not compromised,” and institutions housing women “should have a supply of jumper dresses available in the laundry.”

Ceremonial clothing — Chapel services only

Not worn on the compound, in housing units, or in the visiting room.

Religion	Clothing	Description
Jewish	Kittel	A white prayer robe, worn by men during some holiday services
Muslim	Kurta shirt	Long, loose, full length above the ankle, worn by men
Native American	Ribbon shirt	A multi-colored shirt worn by men and women during the Pow Wow
Wicca	Tabbared	A hoodless poncho or cape, earth brown, worn by men and women during services

Source: PS 5360.10 at pp. 13–14. Ceremonial clothing owned by a person is not stored in the Chapel. “Baggy pants, including the shalwar, are not authorized. Robes, including the jalabiyya (full-length robe), are not authorized.”

Ritual underclothing. Temple garments are authorized for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints; the tallis katan or tzitzis is authorized for Jewish men. Religious necklaces and medallions are worn under clothing except in Chapel areas and may not be altered; ordinarily one religious medallion is retained in personal property. Yoruba, Orisha and Santería practitioners “may retain up to seven plastic beaded necklaces” (PS 5360.10 at p. 14).

Transfers. A list of generally authorized and transferable religious property is maintained by Chaplaincy Services. Additional items may be approved locally by the Warden “but must be sent home when transferring to another institution.” Disposable headwear is made available in Receiving and Discharge for people needing headwear in transit, and transferable property is documented on form BP-A0383, Inmate Personal Property Record (PS 5360.10 at p. 14). Anyone facing a transfer with locally approved religious property should raise it before the move, not after.

Religious literature. Religious books, magazines and periodicals follow the general rules on ordering, purchasing, retaining and accumulating personal property, and rejection of religious publications follows the incoming publications procedures (28 C.F.R. § 548.16(c)). Chaplaincy Services may purchase media with appropriated funds “to be provided equitably among the various religions,” and all media is inspected and entered into the Chapel Library Database before distribution. Material deemed inappropriate is handled and disposed of “in a manner that is sensitive to the faith tradition from which they originated.”

Wine, tobacco, and the limits on practice

Religious wine. People “may be permitted to receive small amounts of wine as part of a religious ritual only when administered under the supervision of Bureau Chaplains, religious contractors, or Chapel volunteers authorized by the Bureau to perform the ritual.” Wine is stored behind two locks and accounted for with bin cards. Critically for anyone worried about a disciplinary charge: “The consumption of wine under these circumstances will not be considered consumption of alcohol or ingestion of an illegal substance.” No one may give wine to another person. For an authorized service, chaplaincy staff provide the wine in a two-ounce covered container, and the minister disposes of the container and any unused portion (PS 5360.10 at p. 4). This is the exact practice litigated in Sample v. Lappin, where the court found the record insufficient to sustain an outright ban.

Religious tobacco. Tobacco is a controlled item “issued under direct staff supervision only in the amounts necessary for the religious ritual,” stored in a locked cabinet in a secure Chapel area, provided in a disposable sealed container with weights tracked, and “[a]ll tobacco must be consumed during the course of the ceremony.” Rituals involving tobacco smoke are confined to the outdoor worship area or a ventilated Chaplaincy Services area (PS 5360.10 at pp. 4, 10).

Unauthorized practices. PS 5360.10 at pp. 4–5 lists what will not be authorized: using ministerial or religious titles; language or behavior reasonably construed as a threat to safety or security, including curses; coercive behavior or intimidation related to religious belief; espousing racial separatism; advocating violence or hate; encouraging domestic or foreign terrorism; animal sacrifice; nudity; self-mutilation; use, display or possession of weapons or what appears to be one (the policy’s example is a paper sword); paramilitary exercises; self-defense training; sexual acts; consumption of alcohol except authorized religious wine; and ingestion of illegal substances.

Supervision levels. How closely a program is watched depends on who leads it. Programs with original inmate oratory require “constant auditory and visual staff supervision in secure facilities,” with one staff member directly supervising. Programs led by Level I volunteers require constant in-room staff supervision; those led by Level II volunteers and contractors require intermittent visual and audio supervision. Special religious programs such as choirs, concerts and seminars require constant in-room supervision (PS 5360.10 at p. 5).

Language. “Inmates may recite formulaic prayers in the language required by their religion, with intermittent staff supervision. For the safety and security of staff and inmates, sermons, original oratory, teachings and admonitions must be delivered in English, and if delivered by an inmate, require constant staff supervision. The Warden may authorize the delivery of programs in other languages” (PS 5360.10 at p. 3).

Groups that will not be authorized. “Any religious group whose doctrine, rituals or practices, espouse domestic and/or foreign terrorism, or advocates violence against individuals, groups or religious groups, or property, thereby threatening the security of the institution will not be authorized.” This was one of the changes introduced by PS 5360.10 in 2022.

Holy days, work, and pastoral visits

Holy days. “Consistent with maintaining security, safety, and good order in the institution, the warden shall endeavor to facilitate the observance of important religious holy days which involve special fasts, dietary regulations, worship, or work proscription” (28 C.F.R. § 548.18). The person submits a written request to the chaplain for time off work. The chaplain may confer with community representatives of the faith to understand the religious nature of the observance, and “will work with requesting inmates to identify the least restrictive accommodation.”

The Warden “will ordinarily allow an inmate to take earned vacation days, or to make up for missed work, or to change work assignments in order to facilitate the observance.” Two details are worth flagging because they cut against common assumptions: the Central Office list of recognized holy days “is not exhaustive,” and the Warden “will give due consideration to, and grant, requests for days off work and school attendance by members of religions not included in the above-mentioned list when the request is religious in nature and consistent with the orderly running of the institution.” And: “The number of days off work for religious holy day observances is not limited to one per year” (PS 5360.10 at p. 15).

Changing a work assignment for religious reasons. 28 C.F.R. § 548.17 provides a specific route: “Inmates must request in writing when they want a change in their work assignments based on their religious beliefs. The detail supervisor will confirm with Chaplaincy Services staff that the request is religious in nature… The detail supervisor will change the inmate’s job assignment based on religious reasons, in a timely manner, if consistent with the orderly running of the institution.” The request may be denied on security, safety or good order grounds. See jobs and inmate work assignments for how assignments are made in the first place.

Pastoral visits and the minister of record. On request the chaplain “shall facilitate arrangements for pastoral visits by a clergy person or representative of the inmate’s faith,” and may request an NCIC check and credentials (28 C.F.R. § 548.19). The minister of record is the spiritual leader the person identifies and the chaplain verifies. Designation is made by submitting an Inmate Request to Staff to the chaplain; the clergy person also submits a request; and after review of credentials, a completed BP-A0301, Authorization to Release Confidential Information, and an NCIC check, the chaplain asks unit team staff to add the clergy person to the visiting list as minister of record. A person may have only one at a time.

Two real benefits follow: “The minister of record will not count against the total number of authorized social visitors an inmate is allowed to have on his or her visiting list,” and where the institution uses a point system to monitor social visits, “visits from the minister of record will not be counted against the total number of visits allowed” (PS 5360.10 at p. 16). Visits from other faith representatives may be counted against social visits. Visits occur in the visiting room during regular hours, and “[u]pon request, the visit may occur in a private area of the visiting room, if available”; if space is unavailable the visit may be rescheduled when private accommodations can be made. The Warden may limit how many faith-representative visits a person receives each month. See inmate visitation.

Religious access in the SHU. Ordinarily everyone except those in restrictive housing has access to regularly scheduled congregate services — but “[i]nmates of all faiths will have regular access to Chaplains,” and on written request may have access to recognized representatives of their faith groups while in the SHU. “Each Chaplain will provide pastoral care in SHUs and hospital units weekly.” Chaplains “will provide opportunities for individuals to receive the sacraments, and sacred rituals while housed in SHU,” including communion and Sabbath prayer items such as matzo and grape juice, and “[o]rdinarily, sacred pipe use will be accommodated in SHU” under the chaplain’s direct supervision (PS 5360.10 at p. 7). Faith group representatives are always escorted in the SHU, and as an alternative the approved visit may occur in the visiting room during regular hours. See special housing units.

Emergency calls and family notifications. When authorized by the Warden, chaplains may approve emergency telephone calls. Calls “must not exceed 15 minutes” and ordinarily go to a number on the approved list or to a hospital, hospice or care facility. Chaplains maintain a log of date, number, person called and relationship, name and register number, and a brief reason (PS 5360.10 at p. 7). Emergency notification of serious illness or death is verified using form BP-A1031 before the person is told. A person may request that a recording of a family member’s funeral be sent in, using form BP-A0331 — after mail room clearance the chaplain reviews the recording and arranges a viewing (PS 5360.10 at p. 8). Families frequently do not know this exists. See staying in contact.

Requesting a practice the Bureau does not already recognize

There is a formal process, and using it builds the record that a later claim depends on. The Bureau “has established a procedure by which consideration of new or unfamiliar religious components for inmates may be employed” (PS 5360.10 at p. 8).

1. Submit form BP-A0822, New or Unfamiliar Religious Components Questionnaire, with supporting documentation, to the institution chaplain. “This form must contain as much information as possible regarding the religious accommodation being requested.” The chaplain may ask for more.
2. The chaplain convenes a local Religious Issues Committee (RIC) to review the request. Members include other Chaplaincy Services staff, Legal Services, Correctional Services, “and any other discipline that may be involved.” Recommendations are made in consultation with the regional Chaplaincy Services Coordinator and documented by memorandum to the Warden.
3. Where a local recommendation cannot be made, a memorandum requesting Central Office RIC review goes to the Assistant Director, Reentry Services Division, through the Warden, the Coordinator and the Regional Director. The Central Office RIC “will make recommendations to the Warden regarding the least restrictive means to accommodate the inmate’s request.”
4. The Warden decides. The Warden “has the discretion to expand or change religious programming at the institution based on the security and orderly running of the institution” and “will determine the local disposition of the request.”

The same route is used to request headwear, ceremonial headwear, scarves, ceremonial clothing or ritual underclothing not on the authorized lists above — each of those tables in PS 5360.10 ends by inviting a BP-A0822. Note also that the Coordinator “can help determine whether the administrative remedy or the BP-A0822 … is more appropriate for the religious issue(s) presented.” Those are two different tracks and picking the wrong one costs time.

If an accommodation is denied

Exhaust first. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), no action may be brought about prison conditions until available administrative remedies are exhausted, and the Supreme Court has confirmed that a prisoner may not sue under these religious-exercise statutes without exhausting first. Rogers v. United States set out the Bureau’s four steps under 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.10 et seq.: informal resolution with staff; a formal BP-9 to the Warden within 20 calendar days of the event; a BP-10 appeal to the Regional Director within 20 calendar days of the Warden’s signed response; and a BP-11 appeal to the General Counsel within 30 calendar days of the Regional Director’s signed response. “The administrative remedies process is not considered exhausted until the fourth step of the process is complete and the appeal is denied by the General Counsel.”

Our page on prison grievances walks through the process, and the administrative remedy program explainer covers the Bureau’s current policy.

What to put in the grievance. Sample v. Lappin is encouraging on one point: a person’s “obligation to exhaust his administrative remedies does not require that he posit every conceivable alternative means by which to achieve his goal.” You do not have to design the accommodation. But the grievance should state the religious basis, identify the practice specifically, and — because Holt makes other institutions’ practices relevant — say if you know that other federal institutions accommodate it.

What the record should show by the time it reaches a court. The written request and any BP-A0822. The chaplain’s response and any interview form. Whether a Religious Issues Committee was convened. Whether the institution ever identified a less restrictive alternative and explained why it was rejected — Sample holds the government “cannot meet its burden to prove least restrictive means unless it has actually considered and rejected the efficacy of less restrictive measures.” And the complete BP-9, BP-10 and BP-11 chain with dates.

Relief. Under RFRA a person “may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government” (42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(c)). As Webman holds, in the D.C. Circuit “appropriate relief” does not include damages against the federal government — that is not a waiver of sovereign immunity — so against the government itself the realistic aim is an order changing the practice; the Supreme Court has since held that RFRA allows money damages, when appropriate, against federal officials sued in their individual capacities. What is available in a particular circuit, and against whom, is a question for counsel. Our page on prisoner rights covers the broader landscape and tort claims covers a separate route for property and injury.

Related reading on religious practice in federal prison

Religious practice is not a self-contained subject in federal prison. It runs through intake, property, food service, work assignments, visiting and discipline, and a problem in one of those areas is often really a problem in another. These pages carry the surrounding detail.

• How to prepare for prison — what to do before a report date, including gathering documentation of religious affiliation and understanding which religious property can come in with you rather than being mailed later at your own expense.
• First day in federal prison — intake and initial classification, which is where religious preference is first recorded and where a diet request should be raised rather than waiting for a program review weeks later.
• Prison life — the full guide to daily life inside a federal institution, including the schedules and controlled movements that determine when Chapel programming can actually be held.
• Communicating with the outside world — mail, telephone, email and visiting, including how chaplain-approved emergency calls and family emergency notifications work.
• Health and wellness and mental health programs — where religious observance overlaps with medical care, particularly medical diets, fasting with a chronic condition, and end-of-life decisions where the chaplain advises the Warden on religious considerations.
• Prison survival — practical guidance on navigating institutional life, including how a visible religious practice is perceived and managed on a compound.
• For families — what a family member can do from outside, including helping identify a minister of record and getting credentials to the chaplain.

Talk to us about a religious accommodation problem

Elizabeth Franklin-Best, P.C. is a boutique federal criminal defense and appellate firm founded in 2019, with offices in Columbia and Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, and a national federal practice. Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA leads the firm’s federal prison consulting work — programming, disciplinary and medical advocacy, administrative remedies, and reentry planning — and Elizabeth Franklin-Best handles the legal representation. If a religious diet, property, service access or holy-day request has been denied and the administrative remedy process is not working, call (843) 620-1100.

Frequently Asked Questions About Religion in Federal Prison

Reviewed for legal accuracy by Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., Principal Attorney·September 2026