Ammon Ra Sumrall, an inmate in Wilcox State Prison, was placed in the Alternative Entree Program (AEP) because of his devotion to the Egyptian sun god. He was therefore given vegan meals rather than the standard prison diet.
Sumrall, who is serving life in prison for a murder in DeKalb County, filed a lawsuit alleging that the prison violated his civil rights.
A federal appeals court recently upheld a lower court’s decision to reject the case of Sumrall, who claimed that his religion obliged him to eat vegan food even though he was seen buying a lot of non-vegan goods from the prison store, according to 13 WMAZ.
RELATED STORIES
Sumrall was temporarily removed from the program after prison officials discovered that he was making purchases of items that were clearly non-vegan, including Cheetos, chili, chicken soup, honey buns, and more, despite his claims that veganism was a component of his religious beliefs.
READ ALSO: ‘Slutty Vegan’ owner Pinky Cole sued over alleged $87,000 in unpaid rent
Sumrall claimed in his case that he was being denied reasonable accommodations for his religious beliefs, equal protection, and proper sustenance under the Eighth Amendment.
However, a three-judge panel decided that Sumrall had no case after the matter reached the federal appeals court. The case focused on whether the jail authorities qualified for qualified immunity, which protects public officials from lawsuits provided two requirements are fulfilled.
They must demonstrate that the official’s actions are within their “discretionary authority,” which is the decision-making power granted to them within the scope of their work. The officials demonstrated that choosing who is qualified for the AEP program was within their authority.
Sumrall then had to demonstrate that his constitutional right to vegan food was “clearly established,” meaning that the officials’ actions were so obviously illegal that they were aware of their illegal activity.
“The appeals court ruled the constitutionality of removing Sumrall from the program was an open question, largely because previous judges have found prison officials are allowed to question the ‘sincerity’ of an inmate’s religious practice. Prisons are required to accommodate ‘sincerely held’ religious beliefs, so if the religious beliefs are not sincerely held, the prison wouldn’t have to provide those meals,” 13 WMAZ wrote.
Sumrall’s purchases that aren’t vegan raise questions about how sincere his beliefs are. Although he claimed that he was buying the items to resell to other prisoners, this did not answer the question of how genuine Sumrall’s veganism was.
“In fact, neither published cases Sumrall cites involved an inmate’s actions contradicting his professed religious beliefs,” according to the ruling.
That increased uncertainty in the case, implying that the officials were unaware that their acts were illegal.
“Put differently, it was not obvious that removing an inmate who bought all kids of non-vegan goods from a vegan meal plan violates due process,” the court’s decision stated.
The court concluded that there was no issue that needed to be resolved.
READ ALSO: Kevin Hart Closes Down His Vegan Chain Restaurants; Here Is Why
Sumrall was re-enrolled in the program and resumed receiving vegan meals just three months after being dropped. That rendered the lawsuit pointless.
He was requesting that the court enforce the return of vegan meals, but they claim that this option had already been offered. There was no issue for the court to resolve, so the lawsuit was dismissed.
Although Sumrall also claimed that only Black inmates were removed from the AEP program and that the prison’s management of the program was discriminatory, the court remained unconvinced.
They claimed Sumrall could not provide an example of a similarly situated prisoner who, all other things being equal, was treated differently because of their race.
