(a) The Bureau provides inmates requesting a religious diet reasonable and equitable opportunity to observe their religious dietary practice within the constraints of budget limitations and the security and orderly running of the institution and the Bureau through a religious diet menu. The inmate will provide a written statement articulating the religious motivation for participation in the religious diet program.
(b) An inmate who has been approved for a religious diet menu must notify the chaplain in writing if the inmate wishes to withdraw from the religious diet. Approval for an inmate's religious diet may be withdrawn by the chaplain if the inmate is documented as being in violation of the terms of the religious diet program to which the inmate has agreed in writing. 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 reapproving a religious diet for an inmate who voluntarily withdraws or who is removed 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.
(c) The chaplain may arrange for inmate religious groups to have one appropriate ceremonial or commemorative meal each year for their members as identified by the religious preference reflected in the inmate's file. An inmate may attend one religious ceremonial meal in a calendar year.
[60 FR 46486, Sept. 6, 1995, as amended at 62 FR 44836, Aug. 22, 1997; 68 FR 74860, Dec. 29, 2003]
Notes of Decisions
Leroy A. Lovelace v. Jack Lee Gene Shinault K. Lester, 472 F.3d 174 (4th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 3× “Nevertheless, the majority insists that the policy imposed a substantial burden, not because Lovelace was removed from Ramadan meals, but either because he missed the group prayers that accompanied the Ramadan meals or because he was not provided with alternative services.”
Koger v. Bryan, 523 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 2× “3d at 765 (citing 28 C.F.R. § 548.20 (a)). Having prisoners verify in writing that their dietary request is religious-based is just one example of a less restrictive means by which the prison officials could have furthered the interests of orderly administration and verification.”
Herman Resnick v. Michael Adams, Warden Mike Szafir, Adm'r, Food Order & Servs., 348 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 4× “See 28 C.F.R. § 548.20 (a) (“The Bureau [of Prisons] provides inmates requesting a religious diet reasonable and equitable opportunity to observe their religious dietary practice within the constraints of budget limitations and the security and orderly running of the institution…”
Jack Morgan v. BOP, 129 F.4th 1043 (7th Cir. 2025).
“” 28 C.F.R. § 548.20 (b). FCI Thomson’s chaplain suspended Morgan’s approval for a kosher diet after receiving notice that Morgan committed one religious-diet-program violation in the form of a turkey-log purchase, but the BOP has since transferred Morgan to a new BOP facility.”
Mitchell Garraway v. Harley Lappin, 490 F. App'x 440 (3rd Cir. 2012).
“Religious diets are provided in accordance with the following BOP policy: The Bureau provides inmates requesting a religious diet reasonable and equitable opportunity to observe their religious dietary practice within the constraints of budget limitations and the security and…”
Resnick v. Adams, 317 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 4× “See 28 C.F.R. § 548.20 (a) (“The Bureau [of Prisons] provides inmates requesting a religious diet reasonable and equitable opportunity to observe their religious dietary practice within the constraints of budget limitations and the security and orderly running of the institution…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.