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
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.
McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005)
Consumer WonThe display of the Ten Commandments in public courthouses violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment if the primary purpose of the display is to promote a religious message, rather than a secular purpose. The evolution of the display and the intent behind it are critical factors in determining its constitutionality.
Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005)
Mixed OutcomeThe procedures adopted by Ohio for classifying prisoners and assigning them to its Supermax facility comply with the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (2005)
Consumer WonStrict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review for an equal protection challenge to a policy of racially segregating prisoners in California's reception centers, as such segregation based on race is subject to heightened scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment.