Becket Fund backs constitutionality of RLUIPA in Pennsylvania prisoner case

Apr 17, 2002

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA") is an "accommodation of religious exercise [that] fits comfortably within the range of laws permitted by the First Amendment," according to an amicus curiae brief (PDF format, 114K) filed today with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The case, Williams v. Bitner, involves a complaint by Henry Williams, a prisoner at the State Correctional Institution (SCI) in Rockview, Pa.

Williams, who is a Muslim, was assigned to work as a cook in the kitchen at SCI-Rockview in February 2001. Initially, officials accommodated his desire to observe the requirements of the Quran, which prohibits Muslims from consuming or assisting others in the consumption of pork. On alternate Saturdays, when pork was on the menu, he was allowed to work at another assignment. But in March 2001, on a day when there was a shortage of cooks, Williams was ordered by his supervisor to ration the pork for lunch. When he refused, he was found guilty of misconduct. When he appealed the finding, a review panel concluded that "Muslim inmate kitchen workers can ration pork since such workers are required to wear gloves and therefore do not ‘touch' pork, technically." He later filed suit, alleging violations of RLUIPA.

The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("DOC") moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds that RLUIPA is unconstitutional. The Becket Fund brief opposes the motion, and makes a detailed argument for the Act's constitutionality.

"Government accommodation of private religious practice is not only permissible under the Establishment Clause, but is in our best traditions of pluralism and respect for religious freedom," the brief argues. "This case has broad implications for the extent to which the government can accomodate private religious practice."

DOC objections to RLUIPA, among them that the law "will burden . . . state prison administrators" and "have adverse consequences on the management of state prison systems" are "irrelevant to the Establishment Clause challenge Defendants have raised to escape application of RLUIPA," the Becket Fund brief observes. In fact, the law "readily satisfies" Supreme Court requirements that it have a secular purpose and that its primary effect not be to advance religion, according to the brief.

Relevant Cases

• Williams v. Bitner