Prisoners’ religious freedom challenged_111703

Posted: 11/14/03

Prisoners' religious freedom challenged

By Robert Marus

ABP Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (ABP)–A federal appeals court has struck down part of a law that is the latest in a series of federal attempts to protect certain aspects of religious freedom.

On Nov. 7, a three-judge panel of the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously said part of a federal law designed to protect prisoners' religious freedom was unconstitutional.

The judges said the portion of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, known by the acronym RLUIPA, dealing with inmates violated the First Amendment's ban on government endorsement of religion.

“RLUIPA has the effect of impermissibly advancing religion by giving greater protection to religious rights than to other constitutionally protected rights,” wrote Judge Ronald Lee Gilman for the panel.

Congress passed RLUIPA in 2000 as a response to the Supreme Court, which in 1997 overturned a similar 1993 law as it applied to state and local governments.

Both RLUIPA and the earlier Religious Freedom Restoration Act, known as RFRA, were designed to restore a high legal standard of protection for free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court had lowered that standard with its 1990 Employment Division vs. Smith decision.

In that case, the court threw out a legal test that required a government entity to prove it had a “compelling state interest” before it burdened an individual's or group's religious freedom. RFRA restored that standard, putting the burden of proof on the government in such cases.

The Supreme Court struck down RFRA as it applied to state governments on the grounds that it violated states' rights. However, it still applies to federal entities.

In the latest case, four Ohio inmates of various religions sued the state government, claiming their rights to free exercise of religion were being unnecessarily violated by prison officials. While a lower court agreed, the 6th Circuit did not, agreeing with attorneys for the state that RLUIPA emphasized religious rights while ignoring other fundamental rights of prisoners.

Saying that there is little “evidence that religious rights are at greater risk of deprivation in the prison system than other fundamental rights,” the judges noted that, under RLUIPA a non-religious prisoner would have much less legal recourse than a religious prisoner who believed that prison officials were violating his fundamental rights.

“The primary effect of RLUIPA is not simply to accommodate the exercise of religion by individual prisoners, but to advance religion generally by giving religious prisoners rights superior to those of non-religious prisoners,” the opinion said.

The 6th Circuit's ruling applies only in the four Midwestern and Southern states covered by the 6th Circuit. It is in conflict with rulings by the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit and Chicago-based 7th Circuit, which have upheld the constitutionality of RLUIPA.

The discrepancy between federal courts makes it likely that the Supreme Court will ultimately agree to hear a case on the constitutionality of RLUIPA.

The 6th Circuit's decision also only applies to the part of RLUIPA dealing with prisoners' rights. The court did not rule on the other main aspect of the law, which restored a high level of legal deference to churches and other religious organizations in zoning disputes with municipal governments and other property-use issues.