High Court protects religious freedom for inmates in RLUIPA ruling

May 31, 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a 2000 law that protects the religious rights of prisoners does not violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

The case involved the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which among other provisions, prevents prison officials from imposing a substantial burden on the religious practice of inmates unless there is a compelling reason to do so and there is no less-restrictive way to protect the state's interest.

K. Hollyn Hollman, Baptist Joint Committee general counsel, said today's decision is important because the court recognizes government can accommodate religion, in an appropriate case, without violating the Establishment Clause.

"Where government acts to lift a substantial government-imposed burden on religion, it allows religion to flourish," Hollman said. "The decision properly protects the religious rights of people who depend on the government for the permission and accommodation to practice their religion."

The case, Cutter vs. Wilkinson, was brought by three Ohio prison inmates, claming they were denied access to religious literature and the opportunity to conduct religious worship services. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the state's favor, that RLUIPA was unconstitutional.

Today, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that there is "some space for legislative action neither compelled by the Free Exercise Clause nor prohibited by the Establishment Clause." The court stated that "RLUIPA fits within the corridor between the Religion Clauses."

"We find RLUIPA's institionalized persons provision compatible with the Establishment Clause because it alleviates exceptional government-created burdens on private religious exercise," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the opinion.

A diverse collation of more than 50 religious and civil rights groups, led by the Baptist Joint Committee, supported the passage and signing of RLUIPA. The coalition filed a friend-of-the court brief that argued RLUIPA did not impermissibly advance religion.

The brief is available at http://bjconline.org/issues/rluipa.htm.

-30-