that concern, it has been clearly established that burdens on prisoners’ free exercise rights must be justified by a legitimate penological interest. See id. at 594-95; Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263, 275-76 (2d Cir.2006) (denying qualified immunity for prison officials not separating Sunni and Shi’ite Ramadan services because “it was clearly established at the time of the alleged violations that prison officials may not substantially burden inmates’ rights to religious exercise without some justification”). It was also clearly established before 2007 that prison officials could not rely solely on the opinions of the New York Board of Rabbis in assessing the sincerity of Barnes’s religious belief. See Ford, 352 F.3d at 590, 597-98; Jackson v. Mann, 196 F.3d 316, 320-21 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468, 476 (2d
holding orthodox jewish inmate was entitled to kosher meals holding that prison official could not deny inmate kosher meals based on rabbis determination that inmate was not jewish under judaic law holding that an inmate has a first amendment right to file grievances against prison officials holding that an inmate stated a claim under the due process clause when guards had placed her in a cell with a dangerous inmate holding orthodox jewish inmates are entitled to a kosher diet