Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005)
Primary Holding
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as it permits the government to accommodate religious practices without unlawfully fostering religion.
In the case of Cutter v. Wilkinson, the Supreme Court decided that a law called RLUIPA, which helps protect the religious rights of people in prisons, does not break the rules about keeping government and religion separate. This is important because it means that people in prisons can practice their religions freely, even if those religions are not mainstream, and they cannot be unfairly treated for their beliefs. This case protects the rights of consumers, especially those who might find themselves in prison, by ensuring they have the same access to religious practices and materials as others. If someone is in a similar situation and feels their religious rights are being ignored or violated, this ruling supports their ability to seek fair treatment.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
Prison officials are not allowed to impose a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion by prisoners, unless a compelling government interest is involved. Ohio prisoners argued that this provision in the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 had been violated when prison authorities did not accommodate their exercise of religions such as Satanism, Wicca, and Asatru. The authorities countered by arguing that the provision was unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it allowed the government to advance religion. The lower court ruled in favor of the prisoners, but the Sixth Circuit ruled that the law was unconstitutional.
Whether Section 3 of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by improperly advancing religion in the context of accommodating the religious practices of institutionalized persons.
The judgment is reversed.
The implementation of this law transferred the burden to the prison officials in proving that their actions required obedience, rather than requiring that the prisoners show that their actions did not require obedience.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- March 21, 2005
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Ginsburg
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006)
Consumer WonThe Federal Government may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act unless it demonstrates that the application of the burden is in furtherance of a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.
Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005)
Consumer WonPrisoners may bring actions under 42 U.S.C. §1983 to challenge the constitutionality of state parole procedures, rather than being required to seek relief exclusively through federal habeas corpus statutes.
Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521 (2006)
Consumer LostPrison regulations that restrict inmates' access to newspapers, magazines, and photographs can be upheld under the First Amendment if they are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, and courts must show substantial deference to the professional judgment of prison officials in such matters.
Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., 551 U.S. 587 (2007)
Consumer LostTaxpayer standing to challenge government expenditures under the Establishment Clause is limited; general taxpayer status does not confer standing unless the expenditure is specifically authorized by Congress for a purpose that allegedly violates the Establishment Clause.