CUTTER v. WILKINSON

Legal Principle at Issue

Whether the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by requiring state-run institutions to accommodate the religious exercises of prisoners unless a compelling security interest justifies the restriction.

Action

Reversed and remanded. Petitioning party received a favorable disposition.

Facts/Syllabus

Section 3 of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 provides, in part: “No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution,” unless the burden furthers “a compelling governmental interest” and does so by “the least restrictive means.” 

The petitioners, who are current and former inmates of Ohio state institutions, allege prison officials with the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction violated the law by failing to accommodate non-mainstream religions. The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction moved to dismiss that claim, arguing, among other things, that the law improperly advances religion in violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Rejecting that argument, the District Court stated the law permits safety and security — undisputedly compelling state interests — to outweigh an inmate’s claim to a religious accommodation. On the thin record before it, the court could not find that enforcement of the law would compromise prison security. Reversing on interlocutory appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held the law impermissibly advances religion by giving greater protection to religious rights than to other constitutionally protected rights, and suggested that affording religious prisoners superior rights might encourage prisoners to become religious.