The Cutter v. Wilkinson case is a Supreme Court case that argues the question, “Did a federal law prohibiting government from burdening prisoners’ religious exercise violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause?” Current and former prisoners from Ohio Department of Corrections, complained that prison workers denied their right to exercise their religious beliefs. They stated that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act was violated. In the case it was stated that the officials denied access to their specific religion’s books and did not allow them wear garments which were required by their religion. They also stated that they were not provided with a preacher trained in their specific religion.
The prison officials argued that they were protecting the First Amendment and that the inmates were “improperly advancing religion.” The Cutter v. Wilkinson case began on April 3, 1997 with three prisoners from the Ohio Department of Corrections. Each prisoner claimed that his right to religion was violated. There were three cases for each prisoner, Gerhardt v. Lazaroff, Hampton v. Wilkinson, and Miller v. Wilkinson, all three cases were combined into one single case. On March 14, 2001 the US Attorney General’s Office was able to come into the case as a plaintiff to defend the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
The case was then heard by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on February 25, 2002. They ruled in favor of the prisoners. The defendants appealed and on November 7, 2003, the Sixth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals reversed the previous court’s decision and remanded the case. The United States Attorney General’s Office appealed the case and on October 12, 2004, the United States Supreme Court granted their petition for a writ of certiorari so that the Supreme Court could review the lower courts record of the case. On May 31, 2005, the United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision and remanded the case back to the lower district court to consider each individual claim in the case. On September 13, 2005 the Sixth Circuit Court upheld the original judgment of the district court. It upheld that RLUIPA was constitutional according to the Tenth Amendment and the Spending Clause and Establishment Clause. There continued to be litigation until 2009 when the parties involved decided to “conditionally” dismiss the case because they reached a settlement. The amount of the settlement was never disclosed but it “seemed that the defendants issued a settlement check to the plaintiffs.”
The petitioners were the three prisoners who sued the Ohio Department of Corrections for prohibiting them to practice their religion freely in prison. The inmates practiced various “non-mainstream” religions including Wicca, Satanism, Asatru, and the Church of Jesus Christ Christian. They claimed that the Department of Corrections in Ohio restricted their right to practice their religion while they were incarcerated. Professor David Goldberger of The Ohio State University College of Law tried the case for the inmates and General Paul Clement was the acting Solicitor that led the case for the Ohio Department of Corrections. The petitioners proposed the question, “whether Congress violated the Establishment Clause by enacting the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act [RLUIPA], which requires state officials to lift unnecessary governmental burdens imposed on the religious exercise of institutionalized persons under their control” (cite the scotusblog cite). The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person’s Act says that “no government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution,” unless the burden “is of furtherance of a compelling governmental interest,”(scotublog cite). One prisoner stated that the prison workers denied their right to the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment by not providing them with their religious books or other items that their religion required and would not allow them meet as religious groups for worship.
The respondents in this case were the employees of the Ohio Department of Corrections. They posed the argument of whether Congress could require the Ohio Department of Corrections provide religious accommodations in their institutions. The employes of the prison stated that prisoners used religious meeting as a means to get gangs together rather that meeting for religious reasons. They also claimed that some of the religions held by the inmates in the case encouraged violence and racial hatred. They also claimed that prison security was an issue in allowing what the inmates were asking for. (scotus blog)
After the case was heard by the Sixth Circuit Court ADD DATE it moved to the United Stated Supreme Court for an appeal ADD DATE. Once the case was heard the Supreme Court Justices ruled unanimously in favor of the prisoners. There were no Justices who wrote descents. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion saying “I join the opinion of the Court. I agree with the Court that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) is constitutional under our modern Establishment Clause case law. I write to explain why a proper historical understanding of the Clause as a federalism provision leads to the same conclusion.” (justia.com) The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with all nine justices: William Hubbs Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Conner, Clarence Thomas, and Stephen G. Breyer. Justice Ginsburg wrote “This Court has long recognized that the government may … accommodate religious practices … without violating the Establishment Clause.” Justice Ginsburg also maintained “ RLUIPA thus protects institutionalized persons who are unable freely to attend to their religious needs and are therefore dependent on the government’s permission and accommodation for exercise of their religion”. It was also stated by Justice Ginsburg that “We do not read RLUIPA to elevate accommodation of religious observances over an institution’s need to maintain order and safety.” In addition, she stated that “RLUIPA does not differentiate among bona fide faiths.” It was also noted the “Should inmate requests for religious accommodations become excessive, impose unjustified burdens on other institutionalized persons, or jeopardize the effective functioning of an institution, the facility would be free to resist the imposition.”
This case was significant in that it upheld the religious rights and freedom for those people that are institutionalized or incarcerated. Their rights could not be taken away. The decision stated that institutionalized or incarcerated people have the right to continue practicing the religion of their choice and should be provided appropriate materials, leaders and meeting times or space. It was noted in Justice Ginsburg’s writing that this was true as long as the practices did not impede the safety and functioning of the institution. It also gave rights no matter the religion, saying that all religions had the right to meeting and practice not just “main stream” religions. The ruling of the United States Supreme Court in favor of the inmates set the standard for religious rights for all inmates or institutionalized people.