WASHINGTON (ABP) — A federal appeals court has affirmed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, only a month after one of its sister courts declared the law unconstitutional.
A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously Dec. 8 that RLUIPA's provisions protecting the religious rights of prisoners do not violate the First Amendment's ban on government establishment of religion.
In the case, inmate Ira Madison sued Virginia prison officials after his request to receive kosher meals was denied. Madison belongs to the Suffolk, Va.-based Church of God and Saints of Christ, which requires its followers to observe Old Testament dietary laws.
A lower-court judge in Roanoke, Va., had ruled against Madison, saying RLUIPA impermissibly favored protection of prisoners' religious rights over other rights.
In November, the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals relied heavily on that decision in issuing a unanimous opinion throwing out RLUIPA with respect to prisoners' rights.
But the 4th Circuit's decision overruled the lower court.
In his opinion for the Richmond, Va.-based court, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III said: “To hold otherwise and find an establishment-clause violation would severely undermine the ability of our society to accommodate the most basic rights of conscience and belief in neutral yet constructive ways.”
Wilkinson said that RLUIPA was not a government endorsement of religion, but merely a government protection for religious exercise. “RLUIPA is not designed to advance a particular religious viewpoint or even religion in general, but rather to facilitate opportunities for inmates to engage in the free exercise of religion,” Wilkinson wrote.
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 (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.
The 4th Circuit's latest ruling becomes the third decision in federal appeals courts upholding RLUIPA's constitutionality. The Chicago-based 7th Circuit and San Francisco-based 9th Circuit have both affirmed the law. The conflict between those decisions and the 6th Circuit's on the issue means the Supreme Court may be forced to address RLUIPA in the next couple of years.
-30-