In the intricate web of laws governing the rights of individuals, one critical statute stands out for its protection of religious freedoms in challenging environments: The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Enacted in 2000, RLUIPA addresses the rights of incarcerated individuals to practice their faith without undue restrictions while also ensuring the preservation of institutional order. This comprehensive guide will delve into the intricacies of RLUIPA, its purpose, the protections it offers to inmates, and how violations are analyzed within correctional facilities.

What is RLUIPA?

RLUIPA is a federal law, 42 U.S.C. §2000cc-1, designed to protect the religious exercise of individuals confined to institutions, including prisons. It prohibits state and local governments, as well as correctional facilities that receive federal funding, from imposing substantial burdens on the religious exercise of institutionalized persons unless they can demonstrate a compelling government interest and use the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.

The Purpose of RLUIPA

The primary aim of RLUIPA is to safeguard religious freedoms for incarcerated individuals, recognizing the fundamental importance of religious practice to many people’s lives. It seeks to strike a balance between respecting these rights and maintaining order and security within correctional facilities.

Protections Offered

RLUIPA provides several key protections for inmates such as:

1. Freedom of Religious Exercise: Inmates are entitled to practice their religion without undue interference from prison officials.
2. Equal Treatment: RLUIPA ensures that inmates of all faiths receive equal treatment and accommodation.
3. Accommodations for Religious Practices: Prisons must make reasonable accommodations for religious practice unless doing so would impose an undue burden on institutional operations.
4. Access to Religious Materials and Services: Inmates have the right to access religious materials and participate in religious services to the extent consistent with institutional security and safety.

Landmark Cases Shaping RLUIPA

Several landmark cases have shaped the interpretation and application of RLUIPA:

1. Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S.Ct. 853 (2015): The Supreme Court held that an Arkansas prison’s grooming policy substantially burdened an inmate’s religious exercise under RLUIPA.
2. Cutter v. Wilkinson, 125 S.Ct. 2113 (2005): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of RLUIPA, affirming its application to state and local governments.

In addition to case law, several federal statutes compliment RLUIPAs protections including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Analyzing RLUIPA Violations in Prison

When evaluating potential RLUIPA violations within correctional facilities, courts typically employ a two-step analysis:

1. Substantial Burden: The court determines whether the prison’s actions impose a substantial burden on the inmate’s religious exercise.
2. Compelling Government Interest and Least Restrictive Means: If a substantial burden is found, the court assesses whether the prison can demonstrate a compelling government interest justifying the burden and whether the measures taken are the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.

Proving a Violation

For a prisoner to prove a violation of RLUIPA, the process has been referred to as a three act play. See Calvin v. Mich Dept of Corr., 927 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. 2019)].

For the first act, a prisoner has the initial responsibility to show a policy is implicating one’s religious exercise. Under RLUIPA, religious exercise is not subject to an exacting review. Congress broadly defined a religious exercise to include any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief. This means it doesn’t matter whether a prisoner practices a religion as a whole or whether or not every believer of the same faith practices the religion in the same manner.

For the second act, he prisoner must show the challenged regulation places a substantial burden on the practice of his or her religious belief. This means the challenged regulation must place a fairly significant restriction upon the religious exercise. When a regulation outright bans a religious exercise, it easily amounts to a significant burden. However, a regulation which threatens punishment or coerces a prisoner to forgo his or her religious belief could also equate to a substantial burden.

Once a prisoner meets these first two requirements, the burden shifts to the institution to show that the regulation is: 1) in the furtherance of a compelling government interest; and, 2) the least restrictive means of serving that interest.

The least-restrictive-means standard is demanding. It requires the government show that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting party.

When Prison Restrictions Are Not RLUIPA Violations

Not all prison restrictions on religious exercise constitutes violations of RLUIPA. Courts recognize that prisons have legitimate interests in maintaining order, safety, and security. Some factors that may justify restrictions without violating RLUIPA include:

1. Legitimate Penological Interests: Restrictions that are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, such as security, safety, and order, are generally upheld.
2. Least Restrictive Means: If the prison can demonstrate that it has pursued the least restrictive means of furthering its interests, the restriction may be deemed permissible.
3. Reasonable Accommodations: Prison policies that offer reasonable accommodations for religious practice, even if not the inmate’s preferred method, may be upheld if they satisfy RLUIPAs requirements.

When a prison can justify one or more regulations are in the best interest of institutional security, a RLUIPA violation will not be found. For example, in Borzych v. Frank, 439 F.3d 388 (7th Cir. 2006), the court found a complete ban on religious texts that promote racial violence can be constitutionally permissible.

When Prison Restrictions Become RLUIPA Violations

Prison restrictions cross the threshold into RLUIPA violations when they impose a substantial burden on an inmate’s religious exercise without a compelling government interest or when the measures taken are not the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.

Some scenarios where restrictions may constitute RLUIPA violations include:

1. Unequal Treatment: Policies that disproportionately burden inmates of certain religious faiths or fail to provide equal accommodations for all religions may violate RLUIPA.
2. Unreasonable Interference: Actions that unreasonably interfere with an inmate’s ability to practice their religion, such as arbitrary denials of religious materials or services, may constitute violations.
3. Failure to Accommodate: Prisons that fail to make reasonable accommodations for religious practices, where such accommodations would not unduly burden institutional interests, may be found in violation of RLUIPA.

My Final Thoughts

RLUIPA stands as a vital safeguard for the religious liberties of incarcerated individuals, ensuring that their rights are respected even in the restrictive environment of correctional facilities. By establishing clear guidelines for evaluating religious exercise claims and balancing them against institutional interests, RLUIPA strikes a delicate balance between religious freedom and prison security. As courts continue to grapple with complex issues surrounding religious rights in prisons, RLUIPA remains a cornerstone of protection for inmates seeking to practice their faith.

If you, or someone you know, will be litigating a Section 1983 lawsuit regarding a RLUIPA violation, or any issue related to incarceration, our book, The Colossal Book of Civil Citations, is a crucial resource in the pursuit of justice. Our books are in stock and ready for immediate shipping. Order your copy today or on behalf of someone incarcerated. Our books are softcover, institution friendly, and frequently advertised in Prison Legal News.