ROWE v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Jeffrey Rowe, a prisoner in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC), sued DOC, its Director of Religious Services, and the chaplain of the Indiana State Prison (collectively, Defendants). Rowe seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming he has a sincere religious belief that he must eat kosher meat, fish, and poultry. The trial court denied Rowe's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding he had described his beliefs inconsistently and, thus, demonstrated their insincerity. Because the record does not support this finding, we reverse and remand for the trial court to reconsider Rowe's motion.

Facts

[2] Rowe identifies himself as an “Identity Christian” or “Israelite.” App. Vol. II, p. 75. He claims to believe he must consume a “kosher diet,” including regularly eating “cloven footed” animals that “chew the cud,” “fish with fins and scales,” and poultry. Id. He likewise claims to believe the Bible prohibits vegetarianism. DOC currently provides Rowe with a vegetarian kosher diet that includes eggs for breakfast three days a week.

[3] In 2023, Rowe filed a grievance requesting a diet “regularly” containing red meat, fish, and poultry. Rowe v. Ind. Dep't of Corr., No. 23A-MI-3013, at *1 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2024). DOC did not agree to Rowe's request. Rowe then filed a complaint against Defendants, seeking: (1) a declaratory judgment that Defendants were violating Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA); and (2) preliminary and permanent injunctions requiring Defendants to provide him with a kosher diet containing at least one of meat, fish, or poultry in “every meal.” Id.

[4] The trial court held a hearing in September 2023. Rowe explained to the court that, pursuant to his beliefs, he “must eat ․ meat, fish[,] and[,] you know, poultry type creatures.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 12. The court asked if the eggs Rowe was receiving “fulfill[ed] at least for those meals this mandate of eating meat, fish, or poultry as part of every meal for those – I'm not saying overall, but for those – I mean, does eggs fulfill that or they do not fulfill that?” Id. at 13. Rowe answered affirmatively, describing the eggs as “part of the poultry.” Id. The court subsequently denied Rowe's motion for a preliminary injunction. However, the court granted summary judgment to Defendants on the basis that Rowe failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies within DOC.

[5] On appeal, a panel of this Court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, explaining that Rowe's request for meat, fish, or poultry in “every meal” was broader than his grievance requesting meals “regularly” containing those foods. Rowe, No. 23A-MI-3013, at *3. That variance rendered Rowe's request for a preliminary injunction “procedurally defective.” Id. The panel also partially affirmed summary judgment to the extent Rowe was seeking to “receive animal-based products with every meal—rather than on a regular basis.” Id. at *4. But Defendants conceded that, as to the narrower claim contained in Rowe's grievance, there was a “genuine issue of material fact as to whether Rowe exhausted his administrative remedies.” Id. The panel therefore remanded for further proceedings.

[6] On remand, Rowe notified the trial court that he had administratively exhausted his broader request for meat, fish, or poultry in “every meal,” and he moved again for a preliminary injunction. App. Vol. II, p. 67. At a hearing, Rowe clarified that he “never said that eggs alone would satisfy [his] beliefs.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 51. Rather, he had to “eat all three items ․ meat, fish, and poultry,” in the “conjunctive.” Id.

[7] The trial court denied Rowe's renewed motion. In its written findings, the court noted that Rowe had stated in his initial grievance that a “vegetarian diet was prohibited by [his] religious beliefs.” App. Vol. II, p. 22. Rowe had then admitted at the September 2023 hearing, the court continued, that “his religious beliefs would also be satisfied if the diet he was provided regularly contained non-meat animal products such as hard-boiled eggs.” Id. at 22–23. In the court's view, that admission “contradict[ed]” Rowe's “prior claims that his sincere religious beliefs prohibited a vegetarian diet, which contains animal products but not meat” and “belie[d] the sincerity of his position.” Id. at 23–24. Rowe's “evolving claims also cast doubt,” the court added, “on the concept that [Rowe would] be irreparably harmed” absent a preliminary injunction. Id. at 25. “What was no harm at all to him at the inception of this cause is now expressed as such,” the court concluded. Id. The court therefore determined that Rowe had failed to establish either a likelihood of success at trial or a threat of irreparable harm. As Defendants acknowledge, the court “did not reach” the other factors involved in deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction. Appellees’ Br., p. 16.

[8] Rowe appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[9] To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) they have a reasonable likelihood of success at trial; (2) they will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction; (3) their potential harm outweighs the defendant's potential harm from an injunction; and (4) an injunction will not disserve the public interest. Willow Haven on 106th St., LLC v. Nagireddy, 252 N.E.3d 418, 422 (Ind. 2025). On review, we must determine whether the evidence supports the trial court's findings and whether its findings support its judgment. Id. “We review the trial court's factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.” Id. Because the record is not fully developed at this stage, we “evaluate only the merits of arguments reached by the trial court.” State v. Econ. Freedom Fund, 959 N.E.2d 794, 801 (Ind. 2011).

[10] Rowe seeks relief under RFRA and RLUIPA. RFRA prohibits a “governmental entity” from “substantially burden[ing] a person's exercise of religion,” unless it “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person” is: (1) “in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest”; and (2) “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” Ind. Code § 34-13-9-8. “A party establishes a prima facie case under Indiana's RFRA by showing the disputed governmental action substantially burdens the party's sincerely held religious belief.” Individual Members of Med. Licensing Bd. of Ind. v. Anonymous Plaintiff 1, 233 N.E.3d 416, 448 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024), trans. denied. RLUIPA provides similar protection to individuals confined in institutions, including state prisons. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a); 42 U.S.C. § 1997(1)(A), (B)(ii); Rowe v. Lemmon, 976 N.E.2d 129, 135 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). RFRA and RLUIPA claims implicate the “question of sincerity,” which is “related to a plaintiff's state of mind” and goes to whether the asserted beliefs are “truly held.” Rowe, 976 N.E.2d at 135; United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 185 (1965).

[11] Here, the trial court's denial of a preliminary injunction depended on its conclusion that Rowe's asserted beliefs are insincere. And that conclusion flowed from its finding that Rowe's asserted beliefs have been inconsistent over time. The court specified that Rowe had declared in his initial grievance that he could not eat a vegetarian diet but then admitted at the September 2023 hearing that “his religious beliefs would also be satisfied if the diet he was provided regularly contained non-meat animal products such as hard-boiled eggs.” App. Vol. II, pp. 22–23.

[12] We agree with Rowe that the record does not support the trial court's finding of inconsistency. At the September 2023 hearing, Rowe stated that “abstaining from meat” was “departing from the faith” and “a doctrine of devils.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 12. He explained that he “must eat ․ meat, fish[,] and[,] you know, poultry type creatures” and “either meat, fish, or poultry as part of every ․ meal.” Id. at 12–13. He also affirmed that the diet he was receiving—a vegetarian kosher diet with eggs—did “not meet those standards.” Id. at 12. The court then asked whether eating eggs partially fulfilled Rowe's beliefs with respect to the breakfasts that came with eggs. Rowe agreed they did, explaining that the eggs were “part of the poultry.” Id. at 13. Rowe thus made clear that eggs can satisfy the poultry element of his diet. But he expressly denied that his current diet—a vegetarian diet lacking meat or fish—was satisfactory.

[13] Accordingly, the record does not support the trial court's finding that Rowe inconsistently conceded the acceptability of a vegetarian diet. And that clearly erroneous finding, once removed, cannot support the trial court's conclusions on Rowe's likelihood of prevailing or his lack of irreparable harm.¹

[14] In line with the applicable standard of review, we decline to consider the balance of harm or the public interest, as the trial court did not address those factors. Econ. Freedom Fund, 959 N.E.2d at 801. Likewise, Defendants do not ask us to affirm on any other basis.

Conclusion

[15] The record does not support the trial court's finding that Rowe described his beliefs inconsistently. Because that finding was the basis for denying Rowe's motion for a preliminary injunction, we reverse and remand for the trial court to reconsider whether to enter an injunction, based on the likelihood-of-success, irreparable-harm, balance-of-harm, and public-interest factors.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Because we reverse based on the trial court's erroneous finding, we do not address Rowe's other arguments.

Weissmann, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Pyle, J., concur.