Dec 20, 2004
Federal law accommodating prisoners' religious practices is constitutional
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty today filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief with the United States Supreme Court on behalf of the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion. The brief, submitted in Cutter v. Wilkinson, argues that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal law that requires state prisons receiving federal funds to reasonably accommodate inmates' religious practices, is constitutional.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty--an interfaith, nonpartisan, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions--submitted the brief on behalf of over 50 religious and civil liberties organizations. These organizations represent almost every major faith group in America, spanning the full spectrum of religious diversity--Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Native Americans, and Sikhs. The Coalition includes liberals and conservatives, religious and nonreligious alike. The groups include the American Jewish Committee, People for the American Way, United Sikhs, Islamic Supreme Council of America, and Hindu American Foundation.
"Though the Coalition includes members who often find themselves on opposite sides of Establishment Clause issues, they speak with one voice in the conviction that accommodating religious exercise by removing government-imposed substantial burdens on religious exercise is an essential element of a democratic society," the brief notes.
In Cutter v. Wilkinson, the Court will determine whether the prisoner provisions of RLUIPA violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The question before the Court is whether Congress unduly favored religion generally by providing inmates with limited accommodation of their religious exercise. The plaintiffs are Ohio prisoners who assert unconventional religious beliefs. They maintain that Ohio prison regulations denying them access to religious literature and the opportunity to conduct religious services are violations of RLUIPA and the Ohio Constitution.
"The issue in Cutter is much bigger than RLUIPA-it's about whether government can pass any law that specially accommodates religious exercise," remarks Becket Fund President and General Counsel Anthony R. Picarello, Jr. "The Court's decision will affect what are literally thousands of accommodations for religion only--a tradition dating back to at least the Founding--contained in federal, state, and local laws nationwide. Little wonder that such an astonishingly diverse coalition of religious and civil rights groups has stood up in defense of the law."
The resolution of this case will have far-reaching impact on the ability of prisoners nationwide to be able to hold religious beliefs and engage in religious practices.
Oral argument in the case will likely be in March.