Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Stephen Maturin · 01-28-2003, 05:16 AM

Judge James C. Turk of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia held last Thursday that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 violates the Establishment Clause. Here's a brief write-up on the case and the decision from the RLUIPA site.

The following comes from an article in The Roanoke Times:

Quote:

Senior U.S. District Judge James Turk ruled that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 "has the principal or primary effect of advancing religious belief." The law prohibits the government from restricting inmates' freedom of religion unless the government has a compelling reason to do so. Turk wrote that it thus violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which has been interpreted to mean that the government cannot promote a certain religion.

"Prison inmates exist in a society of universally limited rights, one that is required by the nature of the institution," Turk wrote. "When Congress acts to lift the limitations on one right while ignoring all others, it abandons a position of neutrality towards these rights, placing its power behind one system of belief."

(The full text of the article is available at the newspaper's website, but it'll cost ya.)

So far as I'm aware, this is the first ruling of its kind. The Court hasn't yet posted the opinion on its website, but hope springs eternal.

Psycho Economist · 01-28-2003, 06:23 AM

The misapplication of logic in that case astounds me. Because inmates do not have the rights of speech, assembly, or firearms ownership while in prison, they ought not be allowed reasonable accomodations to practice their religion? So religion isn't elevated above speech and assembly or firearms ownership as a right? Controlling these rights is necessary to establish order in a prison; religion is irrelevant at least, and potentially helpful to this cause. I thought that's what the free exercise clause is all about.

What's next? Wheelchair-bound inmates told to starve because the ADA ought not apply in a place where rights are meted out on a need-to-have basis.

Here's my "I am not a lawyer" lemmon-test interpretation of the RLUIPA:

Secular purpose: Maintaining moralle and order in a correctional institution.

Entanglement with religious institutions: No more than has already been de-facto accepted as constitutional. If a case comes up and tosses congressional or military chaplains: sure, this one ought to go too... but as it stands, there's no basis to do so.

Advancement of religion: None. If you have to ask for the accomodation to get it, and the accomodation doesn't involve other inmates, it doesn't advance religion at all.

All next week at Buckingham Federal Prison: cheese-battered pork chops for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Stephen Maturin · 01-28-2003, 07:11 AM

It's worth noting that this recent ruling conflicts with a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision issued last month. The Ninth Circuit case is discussed in this thread.

Judge Turk apparently fast-tracked his recent ruling for appeal. I kinda doubt that the ruling will survive the Fourth Circuit.

gravitybow · 01-28-2003, 07:17 AM

"Prison inmates exist in a society of universally limited rights, one that is required by the nature of the institution," Turk wrote. "When Congress acts to lift the limitations on one right while ignoring all others, it abandons a position of neutrality towards these rights, placing its power behind one system of belief."

Here are two possible outcomes with this line of reasoning:
[list=1][*] The prison system will dictate the nature of religion available to prisoners. One religion becomes mandatory for all prisoners. Chaplains have carte blanche. (limited rights formerly provided by the establishment clause)
[*] Like owning firearms or casting votes, religion will disappear in prison. (limited rights formerly provided by the free exercise clause)[/list=1]

It's odd how two completely different outcomes are possible depending on which clause is limited in the name of "neutrality".

RufusAtticus · 01-28-2003, 11:17 AM

US Constitution Amenendment XIV: Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now if Liberty taken to mean more than just "not incarcerated," then it is clear that under due process of law the government can take away the rights of people convicted of a crime. However, such punishment must not be "cruel," "unusual," or unequal. I support legislation that enforces these guidlines, including that prisoners cannot be descriminated against for their religious beliefs or lack there of. However, it is probably stupid to link such a law with land usage. The problem with RLUIPA is that it allows religious institutions to avoid local zoning laws, even if those laws are neutral towards religion. That is the Lemon Test problem.

Stephen Maturin · 01-28-2003, 05:25 PM

The opinion is now posted and can be downloaded in PDF by right-clicking here.

admice · 01-29-2003, 03:37 PM

Thanks for the post SM

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-28-2003, 06:23 AM	#2
Psycho Economist Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Peoria, IL Posts: 854	The misapplication of logic in that case astounds me. Because inmates do not have the rights of speech, assembly, or firearms ownership while in prison, they ought not be allowed reasonable accomodations to practice their religion? So religion isn't elevated above speech and assembly or firearms ownership as a right? Controlling these rights is necessary to establish order in a prison; religion is irrelevant at least, and potentially helpful to this cause. I thought that's what the free exercise clause is all about. What's next? Wheelchair-bound inmates told to starve because the ADA ought not apply in a place where rights are meted out on a need-to-have basis. Here's my "I am not a lawyer" lemmon-test interpretation of the RLUIPA: Secular purpose: Maintaining moralle and order in a correctional institution. Entanglement with religious institutions: No more than has already been de-facto accepted as constitutional. If a case comes up and tosses congressional or military chaplains: sure, this one ought to go too... but as it stands, there's no basis to do so. Advancement of religion: None. If you have to ask for the accomodation to get it, and the accomodation doesn't involve other inmates, it doesn't advance religion at all. All next week at Buckingham Federal Prison: cheese-battered pork chops for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

01-28-2003, 07:11 AM	#3
Stephen Maturin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA Posts: 1,295	It's worth noting that this recent ruling conflicts with a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision issued last month. The Ninth Circuit case is discussed in this thread. Judge Turk apparently fast-tracked his recent ruling for appeal. I kinda doubt that the ruling will survive the Fourth Circuit.

01-28-2003, 07:17 AM	#4
gravitybow Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Washington, NC Posts: 1,696	"Prison inmates exist in a society of universally limited rights, one that is required by the nature of the institution," Turk wrote. "When Congress acts to lift the limitations on one right while ignoring all others, it abandons a position of neutrality towards these rights, placing its power behind one system of belief." Here are two possible outcomes with this line of reasoning: [list=1][] The prison system will dictate the nature of religion available to prisoners. One religion becomes mandatory for all prisoners. Chaplains have carte blanche. (limited rights formerly provided by the establishment clause) [] Like owning firearms or casting votes, religion will disappear in prison. (limited rights formerly provided by the free exercise clause)[/list=1] It's odd how two completely different outcomes are possible depending on which clause is limited in the name of "neutrality".

01-28-2003, 11:17 AM	#5
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	US Constitution Amenendment XIV: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Now if Liberty taken to mean more than just "not incarcerated," then it is clear that under due process of law the government can take away the rights of people convicted of a crime. However, such punishment must not be "cruel," "unusual," or unequal. I support legislation that enforces these guidlines, including that prisoners cannot be descriminated against for their religious beliefs or lack there of. However, it is probably stupid to link such a law with land usage. The problem with RLUIPA is that it allows religious institutions to avoid local zoning laws, even if those laws are neutral towards religion. That is the Lemon Test problem.

01-28-2003, 05:25 PM	#6
Stephen Maturin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA Posts: 1,295	The opinion is now posted and can be downloaded in PDF by right-clicking here.

01-29-2003, 03:37 PM	#7
admice Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: S Cal Posts: 327	Thanks for the post SM

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.