U.S. Supreme Court to hear case on federal religious rights law

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide the legality of a four-year-old federal law that protects the religious rights of prisoners.

The high court announced Oct. 12 it would review a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act violates the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion. The justices will determine whether the section on prisoners’ rights is constitutional.

The second-prong of the legislation, which offers protections to churches in land-use matters, is not part of the high court’s review.

Oral arguments in the case, which is Cutter v. Wilkinson, will not occur before January.

In accepting the case out of the Sixth Circuit, the Supreme Court agreed to review the only one of four appellate decisions to go against RLUIPA. The Fourth, Seventh and Ninth circuits have upheld the prisoner provision in the law.

The case involves some Ohio prisoners who hold unconventional religious beliefs. They assert that state corrections rules denying them access to religious literature and the opportunity to conduct religious services violate RLUIPA and the Ohio Constitution. John Cutter is an avowed Satanist, while other plaintiffs include an ordained minister of a white supremacist group and a follower of Asatru, a polytheistic religion that originated with the Vikings.

In the Sixth Circuit decision in November 2003, Ronald Lee Gilman wrote on behalf of a three-judge panel that RLUIPA “has the effect of impermissibly advancing religion by giving greater protection to religious rights than to other constitutionally protected rights.” The law “also has the effect of encouraging prisoners to become religious in order to enjoy greater rights,” Gilman wrote.

“One effect of RLUIPA is to induce prisoners to adopt or feign religious belief in order to receive the statute’s benefits,” he asserted.

A RLUIPA advocate said the Cutter case “is much bigger than RLUIPA.”

“The court’s decision will affect what are literally thousands of accommodations for religion only—a tradition dating back to at least the founding (of the country)—contained in federal, state and local laws nationwide,” Anthony Picarello, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said in a written statement. “The accommodations range from the U.S. military’s allowing Jews in the armed forces to wear yarmulkes to Ohio’s own exemption of minors from underage drinking laws for religious purposes.”

RLUIPA, signed by President Bill Clinton in September 2000, bans 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 if it can demonstrate it has a compelling interest and is using the least restrictive means to advance that interest.

Congress passed RLUIPA after the more expansive Religious Freedom Restoration Act was invalidated by the Supreme Court. In approving RLUIPA, Congress—with the support of a diverse coalition of organizations, including the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission—sought to address two of the areas in which government most commonly inhibits religious free exercise.

The Sixth Circuit consists of federal courts in the states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio and Michigan.

Churches fight for rights
Challenges to the federal law are not new, as suits have been filed in communities across the country. In June, a federal district court judge ruled that a portion of the the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act was unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge Steven V. Wilson ruled the law unconstitutional even though he found that the city of Lake Elsinore had unjustifiably violated the church free exercise rights under RLUIPA. The 2001 suit was filed on behalf of Elsinore Christian Center after the city refused to issue a conditional use permit for a downtown building the church planned to buy and renovate.

Under the federal RLUIPA, municipalities are prohibited from imposing undue burdens and restrictions as an obstacle to religious entities.

The church, represented by the Pacific Justice Institute and affiliate attorney Robert Tyler, vow to appeal the ruling.

“This is a much bigger battle for religious freedom than just for our church,” said Elsinore Christian Center Pastor Jim Hilbrant. “This case is for the freedom of everyone to assemble and worship God.”

BP News
Published by Keener Communications Group, November 2004

Christian Examiner™, P.O. Box 2606 El Cajon, CA 92021 • 619-668-5100 • Fax 619-668-1115
Email: info@christianexaminer.com • Web site: www.christianexaminer.com