Supreme Court weighs religious freedom law

By Tom Strode - Mar 31, 2005 - comment

The Bush administration argued a federal law protecting the religious freedom of prisoners does not violate the First Amendment ban on government establishment of religion in an appearance before the U.S. Supreme Court March 21.

In oral arguments at the high court, the federal government squared off against the state of Ohio in a debate over the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Lawyers for the Bush administration and inmates in Ohio prisons urged the high court to overturn a lower court decision that ruled the law was an establishment of religion. The lawyer representing Ohio, meanwhile, argued for the justices to uphold the ruling, contending RLUIPA goes beyond the First Amendment’s protection of religious expression and promotes religion

The justices are expected to issue a decision before they adjourn in late June or early July.

RLUIPA, which was signed into law by President Clinton in 2000, prohibits 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.

The case, which is on appeal from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio, involves some Ohio prisoners who hold unconventional beliefs. They assert that state corrections rules denying them access to religious material and the opportunity to perform religious services violate RLUIPA.

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission signed onto a friend-of-the-court brief with nearly 60 other organizations in support of RLUIPA. The brief says the coalition does not take a position on the specific facts in the case but is defending the constitutionality of RLUIPA.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is the only one of five federal appeals courts to invalidate RLUIPA. The Fourth, Seventh, Ninth and 11^th^ circuits have upheld the prisoner provision in the law.

The case is Cutter v. Wilkinson.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Citizenship, Church and State, Religious Liberty

Post a Comment




Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Thank you for your interest in the ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (SBC).

Comments are moderated to preserve the family-oriented nature of this website and in an attempt to avoid comment spam. We welcome opposing viewpoints, and we will not turn comments away as long as your views are presented with respect to everyone.

Your comments will not appear immediately and are subject to editing or deletion. We will make every attempt to check new comments in a timely manner, though there will likely be delays on the weekends and around holidays.

Please follow the these guidelines to insure your comments will be posted:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name. We find folks are less-rude online when not hiding behind a screen-name.
  2. Name-calling and vulgar-language will not be tolerated. Zero-tolerance is our policy. We will not spend time editing profanity. If it contains foul language, your post will be deleted. Oh, and we decide what is and what is not vulgar.
  3. Comments must be on topic. General comments (compliments, complaints, and otherwise) are best delivered here or expressed on your own personal Web site.
  4. And please, do not type in ALL CAPS. It looks like you're screaming at people.

Additionally, within Baptist polity, please recognize that many issues and decisions are addressed at a local church level. SBC denominational (national) offices have no control and desire no control over the activities of a local church. This entity is not responsible for overseeing and insuring the ethical behavior of Southern Baptist pastors or church members. If your concern involves a legal civil or criminal matter, we suggest you contact the proper local officials.

Issues involving pastoral staff or other church members, local Baptist associations or state Baptist conventions are local issues. Therefore the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission cannot and should not address such issues. While we regret we are unable to assist you, we encourage you to seek a biblical resolution of the issue at the local church level. If your question or submission pertains to a matter covered in this text, it is likely we will not acknowledge your submission.

Other than that, we welcome you and hope to see thoughtful discussions at ERLC.com