On appeal from a Final Agency Decision of the New Jersey Department of Corrections.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted February 3, 2011
Before Judges Wefing, Payne and Baxter.
This matter was commenced when, on November 24, 2004, E.W., a convicted sex offender imprisoned at the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center (ADTC) submitted an administrative remedy form (ARF) that contained a request that "the ADTC terminate all broadcasting of religious programming on Channels 10 & 14, cease the expenditure of state funds to operate and maintain the satellite dish used to capture the signal from 3ABN, remove this satellite dish from state property, cease all forms of endorsement of religious proselytizing in the treatment programs, and cease any reliance upon religious values, doctrines or beliefs in decisions affecting conditions of confinement at the ADTC." Additionally, E.W. submitted an ARF disputing a denial of authorization to hold a Third Annual Catholic Recognition Dinner on January 31, 2006 "to recognize the contributions of time and talent by persons from within and without the Catholic Congregation."
Unsatisfied by the Department's final decisions denying his complaints, E.W. appealed to this court. In an unpublished opinion, we affirmed the denial of authorization to hold the recognition dinner. However, we remanded the remainder to permit discovery regarding the religious content of broadcasts transmitted through the 3ABN satellite dish, a gift of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and regarding therapeutic materials utilized in the ADTC and for further briefing with respect to the Establishment Clause arguments that formed the core of E.W.'s appeal. E[.]W[.] v. New Jersey Department of Corrections, No. A-4875-04 (App. Div. August 8, 2008).
Thereafter, we were informed that the ADTC had permanently removed the satellite dish given to it by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Additionally, over time, the State revised its treatment materials in an effort to remove their religious content.
The matter finally came before us again on February 1, 2011. In that connection, E.W. submitted an extensive brief, in which he made the following arguments:
Actions Of DOC Serve To Establish Religion In Violation Of The Federal And State Constitution.
A. State May Not Act With The Purpose Or Effect Of Advancing Or Inhibiting Religion Or In A Manner That Creates Government Entanglement With Religion.
B. Government May Not Expend Taxpayer Funds To Support, Endorse, Or Promote Religion, Even In Service Of Legitimate Government Interests.
1. Does the Statute or Government Practice Have a ...