6/30/05 Unanimous court rules in favor of religious liberty for inmates
Unanimous court rules in favor of religious liberty for inmates
By Tom Strode — BP News
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld May 31 a federal law that protects the religious freedom of prisoners.
The high court sustained the inmate portion of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, overturning a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in the process. The 6th Circuit, based in Cincinnati, was the only one of five appeals courts that had ruled against RLUIPA, contending the law’s accommodation of prisoners’ free-exercise rights violated the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion.
The decision provided support for a law enacted in 2000 that bars government policies that substantially burden free exercise of religion by inmates and, in land-use cases, by a person or institution. The government, however, can gain an exemption from the law if it can show it has a “compelling interest” and is using the “least restrictive means” to further that interest.
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said RLUIPA is consistent with the establishment clause “because it alleviates exceptional government-created burdens on private religious exercise.”
“Were the court of appeals’ view the correct reading of our decisions, all manner of religious accommodations would fall,” Ginsburg wrote, citing the freedom of members of the military to wear religious apparel.
“We do not read RLUIPA to elevate accommodation of religious observances over an institution’s need to maintain order and safety,” she wrote. “We have no reason to believe that RLUIPA would not be applied in an appropriately balanced way, with particular sensitivity to security concerns.”
The law also does not discriminate by belief, Ginsburg said.
“It confers no privileged status on any particular religious sect, and singles out no bona fide faith for disadvantageous treatment,” she wrote.
Religious freedom advocates applauded the ruling.
“This is a tremendous victory for religious freedom,” said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “The unanimous nature of the decision helps to underscore what a tremendous win this is for the free-exercise, religious rights of all Americans. Every American who loves religious freedom should rejoice over this decision.”
Sweet victory
Anthony Picarello, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, called the opinion a “win for religious exercise in prison, but, more importantly, it is a thumping victory for religion-only accommodations nationwide.
“There’s a strong argument to be made that the anti-accommodation reading of the establishment clause has been dead for a long time, but today’s unanimous decision removes any lingering doubt,” Picarello said in a written release.
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission signed on to a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Becket Fund in support of RLUIPA. A diverse coalition of nearly 60 organizations endorsed the brief, which argued the law is an appropriate accommodation of religious free exercise and does not violate the establishment clause.
Among the nearly 60 organizations signing onto the brief as part of the coalition were the American Center for Law and Justice, Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, Prison Fellowship, National Council of Churches, Christian Legal Society, People for the American Way, Liberty Counsel, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Anti-Defamation League and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Principle supported
The coalition defended the constitutionality of RLUIPA and did not take a position on the specific facts in the case, which included inmates with beliefs that are contrary to Christianity and other faiths. Among the inmates or former inmates involved in the case were a Satanist and a practitioner of the pagan religion Wicca, as well as an ordained minister of a white supremacist group and a follower of Asatru, a polytheistic religion that originated with the Vikings.
“When we are tempted to limit religious freedom rights because of the odious and extreme nature of the religious practitioners whose free exercise rights are being challenged, we should always remember that what we allow the government to do to one group today, it can do to other groups tomorrow,” Land told Baptist Press. “It is always at the margins of radical or extreme faith that such religious freedoms are tested and restricted by governments.”
The prisoners, who were in Ohio correctional institutions, asserted the state’s rules for inmates denied them access to religious material and the opportunity to perform religious services.
The Supreme Court’s decision was a victory in Congress’ lengthy effort to restore free exercise of religion to its position before a controversial Supreme Court ruling in 1990. That year in Employment Division v. Smith, the justices rejected a previous requirement the government must show it has a “compelling interest” in restricting religious exercise and its action is the “least restrictive means” in promoting that interest. The high court said the government only must show a law is neutral toward religion.
Congress overtuned
Congress responded in 1993 by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which restored the “compelling interest/least restrictive” test. The Supreme Court, however, rejected the law in 1997, ruling Congress exceeded its authority.
The high court’s rejection of that more expansive law motivated Congress to pass RLUIPA. In it, Congress addressed two of the areas—land use and institutions—in which government most commonly inhibits religious free exercise. President Bill Clinton signed RLUIPA into law in September 2000.
In contrast to the 6th Circuit, the courts of appeals that have upheld RLUIPA are the 4th, 7th, 9th and 11th circuits.
Ginsburg returned the case, Cutter v. Wilkinson, to the 6th Circuit for its reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion agreeing with the decision, but arguing the establishment clause does not prevent Congress from adopting laws related to religion generally.
Published by Keener Communications Group, July 2005
All site contents copyright © Christian Examiner™
By Tom Strode — BP News
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld May 31 a federal law that protects the religious freedom of prisoners.
The high court sustained the inmate portion of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, overturning a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in the process. The 6th Circuit, based in Cincinnati, was the only one of five appeals courts that had ruled against RLUIPA, contending the law’s accommodation of prisoners’ free-exercise rights violated the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion.
The decision provided support for a law enacted in 2000 that bars government policies that substantially burden free exercise of religion by inmates and, in land-use cases, by a person or institution. The government, however, can gain an exemption from the law if it can show it has a “compelling interest” and is using the “least restrictive means” to further that interest.
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said RLUIPA is consistent with the establishment clause “because it alleviates exceptional government-created burdens on private religious exercise.”
“Were the court of appeals’ view the correct reading of our decisions, all manner of religious accommodations would fall,” Ginsburg wrote, citing the freedom of members of the military to wear religious apparel.
“We do not read RLUIPA to elevate accommodation of religious observances over an institution’s need to maintain order and safety,” she wrote. “We have no reason to believe that RLUIPA would not be applied in an appropriately balanced way, with particular sensitivity to security concerns.”
The law also does not discriminate by belief, Ginsburg said.
“It confers no privileged status on any particular religious sect, and singles out no bona fide faith for disadvantageous treatment,” she wrote.
Religious freedom advocates applauded the ruling.
“This is a tremendous victory for religious freedom,” said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “The unanimous nature of the decision helps to underscore what a tremendous win this is for the free-exercise, religious rights of all Americans. Every American who loves religious freedom should rejoice over this decision.”
Sweet victory
Anthony Picarello, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, called the opinion a “win for religious exercise in prison, but, more importantly, it is a thumping victory for religion-only accommodations nationwide.
“There’s a strong argument to be made that the anti-accommodation reading of the establishment clause has been dead for a long time, but today’s unanimous decision removes any lingering doubt,” Picarello said in a written release.
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission signed on to a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Becket Fund in support of RLUIPA. A diverse coalition of nearly 60 organizations endorsed the brief, which argued the law is an appropriate accommodation of religious free exercise and does not violate the establishment clause.
Among the nearly 60 organizations signing onto the brief as part of the coalition were the American Center for Law and Justice, Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, Prison Fellowship, National Council of Churches, Christian Legal Society, People for the American Way, Liberty Counsel, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Anti-Defamation League and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Principle supported
The coalition defended the constitutionality of RLUIPA and did not take a position on the specific facts in the case, which included inmates with beliefs that are contrary to Christianity and other faiths. Among the inmates or former inmates involved in the case were a Satanist and a practitioner of the pagan religion Wicca, as well as an ordained minister of a white supremacist group and a follower of Asatru, a polytheistic religion that originated with the Vikings.
“When we are tempted to limit religious freedom rights because of the odious and extreme nature of the religious practitioners whose free exercise rights are being challenged, we should always remember that what we allow the government to do to one group today, it can do to other groups tomorrow,” Land told Baptist Press. “It is always at the margins of radical or extreme faith that such religious freedoms are tested and restricted by governments.”
The prisoners, who were in Ohio correctional institutions, asserted the state’s rules for inmates denied them access to religious material and the opportunity to perform religious services.
The Supreme Court’s decision was a victory in Congress’ lengthy effort to restore free exercise of religion to its position before a controversial Supreme Court ruling in 1990. That year in Employment Division v. Smith, the justices rejected a previous requirement the government must show it has a “compelling interest” in restricting religious exercise and its action is the “least restrictive means” in promoting that interest. The high court said the government only must show a law is neutral toward religion.
Congress overtuned
Congress responded in 1993 by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which restored the “compelling interest/least restrictive” test. The Supreme Court, however, rejected the law in 1997, ruling Congress exceeded its authority.
The high court’s rejection of that more expansive law motivated Congress to pass RLUIPA. In it, Congress addressed two of the areas—land use and institutions—in which government most commonly inhibits religious free exercise. President Bill Clinton signed RLUIPA into law in September 2000.
In contrast to the 6th Circuit, the courts of appeals that have upheld RLUIPA are the 4th, 7th, 9th and 11th circuits.
Ginsburg returned the case, Cutter v. Wilkinson, to the 6th Circuit for its reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion agreeing with the decision, but arguing the establishment clause does not prevent Congress from adopting laws related to religion generally.
Published by Keener Communications Group, July 2005
All site contents copyright © Christian Examiner™
posted by Aestrea Raven at Thursday, June 30, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home