Murphy v. Collier (2019) was a U.S. Supreme Court case that affirmed a death row inmate’s right to spiritual counsel in the execution chamber, ensuring religious equality in corrections.
Case Background
Patrick Henry Murphy, a Buddhist death row inmate in Texas, was sentenced to death for his role in a 2000 prison escape that led to the killing of a police officer. As his execution date approached, Murphy requested that a Buddhist spiritual advisor be present in the execution chamber. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) denied his request, citing a policy that only allowed prison-employed Christian and Muslim chaplains in the chamber. Murphy challenged this policy, arguing that it violated his religious rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
Legal Issues and Arguments
Murphy’s legal team argued that the Texas policy discriminated against non-Christian inmates by granting preferential treatment to certain religions while denying others equal access to spiritual advisors. Their challenge rested on constitutional and statutory protections that ensure religious freedom and prevent government favoritism toward specific faiths. They contended that Texas’s policy violated the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as well as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects individuals from government interference in their religious practices. Murphy’s legal team argued that by denying him access to a Buddhist spiritual advisor while allowing Christian and Muslim chaplains in the execution chamber, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) had effectively burdened his religious practice. The state’s policy prevented Murphy from receiving religious comfort in his final moments, a right granted to other inmates of different faiths.
The Supreme Court has historically ruled that prison policies must not place unnecessary burdens on religious practices unless there is a compelling state interest. Murphy’s attorneys contended that the denial of a Buddhist advisor did not serve a legitimate state interest, but rather demonstrated an unjustified preference for certain religions over others. They argued that the state could not selectively allow religious accommodations while excluding others without violating Murphy’s constitutional rights.
The Establishment Clause and Government Neutrality
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another. Murphy’s legal team asserted that by allowing Christian and Muslim chaplains in the execution chamber but refusing access to a Buddhist spiritual advisor, the Texas policy demonstrated religious favoritism. They argued that the government must remain neutral in matters of religion and that policies granting privileges to some faiths while denying them to others violate the Establishment Clause.
Legal precedent supports this argument, as the Supreme Court has ruled in previous cases that government institutions—including prisons—must apply religious policies in a neutral manner. Murphy’s attorneys pointed to prior rulings that emphasized the need for equal treatment of all religions in state-run institutions. They contended that by allowing only certain chaplains into the execution chamber, Texas was endorsing those religions over others, which is explicitly prohibited by the Establishment Clause.
Religious Protections Under RLUIPA
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) provides additional protections for incarcerated individuals, ensuring that their religious rights are not unduly restricted. RLUIPA prohibits prison policies that impose a substantial burden on religious practices unless the state can demonstrate a compelling interest and prove that the restriction is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. Murphy’s attorneys argued that the Texas policy imposed a substantial burden on his religious exercise by denying him access to a Buddhist spiritual advisor in his final moments.
The legal team contended that Texas failed to meet RLUIPA’s strict requirements for restricting religious practices. They pointed out that the state could not provide a compelling reason why only Christian and Muslim chaplains were allowed in the execution chamber while Buddhist, Jewish, and other faith leaders were excluded. They also argued that Texas did not use the least restrictive means to address any concerns, as allowing a Buddhist spiritual advisor in the chamber would not have disrupted security or the execution process. By failing to apply its policy in a fair and neutral manner, the state violated Murphy’s rights under RLUIPA.
Texas’s Defense and Security Concerns
The state of Texas defended its policy by arguing that security concerns and logistical limitations justified restricting the presence of spiritual advisors in the execution chamber. The TDCJ asserted that only prison-employed chaplains were allowed in the chamber and that, historically, these chaplains had been either Christian or Muslim. The state claimed that expanding access to religious advisors of all faiths could create administrative burdens, security risks, and potential disruptions during executions.
However, Murphy’s legal team countered that these concerns were not applied consistently, as Christian and Muslim chaplains were permitted while other faiths were excluded. They argued that if security risks were a legitimate concern, the state should have prohibited all chaplains rather than selectively excluding certain religions. The Supreme Court ultimately found this argument compelling, concluding that Texas’s policy was not neutrally applied and, therefore, violated Murphy’s religious rights.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court issued a stay of execution on March 28, 2019, preventing Murphy’s execution from proceeding unless Texas granted him access to a Buddhist spiritual advisor. The Court’s decision, influenced by concerns over religious discrimination, emphasized that states must apply religious policies in prisons fairly and equitably. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion, stated that if Texas allowed Christian and Muslim chaplains in the execution chamber, it must also allow chaplains of other faiths or exclude all spiritual advisors altogether.
Impact on Corrections and Religious Rights
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Murphy v. Collier had far-reaching implications for religious rights within correctional institutions. The decision not only influenced Texas’s execution policies but also reinforced broader legal protections for incarcerated individuals practicing their faith. It set a significant precedent for future cases concerning religious accommodations in prisons.
Policy Changes in Texas and Beyond
Following the ruling, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) made significant changes to its execution policies to ensure religious equality. Rather than allowing Buddhist spiritual advisors into the execution chamber, Texas opted to ban all religious advisors from being physically present during executions. This change, while ensuring equal treatment among different faiths, was a controversial move. Critics argued that the policy shift effectively eliminated religious comfort for all inmates facing execution, rather than expanding access to include all faiths.
Beyond Texas, the ruling prompted other states to re-evaluate their execution procedures and prison policies concerning religious accommodations. Some states opted to revise their policies to allow spiritual advisors of all faiths into the execution chamber, ensuring compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling and avoiding future legal challenges. The case underscored the importance of maintaining neutral, non-discriminatory policies regarding religious accommodations in correctional settings.
Stronger Protections Under RLUIPA
One of the most significant legal impacts of Murphy v. Collier was its reinforcement of the protections granted under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Enacted in 2000, RLUIPA prohibits the government from imposing substantial burdens on the religious practices of incarcerated individuals unless there is a compelling governmental interest that is pursued through the least restrictive means. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case reaffirmed that prison policies must not discriminate against individuals based on their religion.
The ruling reinforced the idea that correctional institutions must accommodate religious practices fairly, ensuring that no particular faith receives preferential treatment. By highlighting the unequal treatment of non-Christian inmates, the case set a clear standard that religious policies in prisons must be applied consistently across all faiths. It also emphasized that security concerns—often cited as justification for restrictive prison policies—must be balanced with constitutional protections for religious freedom.
Precedent for Future Cases
Beyond its immediate effects on Texas and other state prison systems, Murphy v. Collier set an important precedent for future legal challenges related to religious rights in correctional settings. Courts are now more likely to scrutinize prison policies that provide accommodations to some religious groups while excluding others. This ruling signaled to correctional institutions that religious discrimination, even if unintentional, could lead to legal challenges and Supreme Court intervention.
In subsequent cases, Murphy v. Collier has been cited as an example of the judiciary’s commitment to protecting religious rights in prisons. The decision serves as a reminder that incarcerated individuals do not forfeit their constitutional rights, including the right to religious freedom. As prison policies continue to evolve, the case remains a benchmark for assessing whether correctional institutions are meeting their legal obligations under the First Amendment and RLUIPA.
Conclusion
Murphy v. Collier underscored the importance of religious equality in the criminal justice system. By ruling that Texas’s policy discriminated against non-Christian inmates, the Supreme Court reaffirmed constitutional protections for religious freedom, even for those on death row. The case continues to shape policies on religious accommodations in prisons and correctional facilities nationwide.
[ Glossary ]
Last Modified: 03/02/2025