RLUIPA.org
Petition Seeks Supreme Court Review of Prisoner Case Under RLUIPA
Fifth Circuit Decision Worsens Split on Meaning of "Substantial Burden"
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty today asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up another case involving the religious rights of prisoners. The Court recently heard oral arguments in a similar case, Cutter v. Wilkinson.
The Becket Fund--a nonpartisan, interfaith, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions--teamed up with the Washington, DC, law firm Hogan & Hartson to file the petition for a writ of certiorari. The petition asks the court to review the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Adkins v. Kaspar.
"The opportunity to exercise religion behind prison walls is of vital importance to thousands of individuals incarcerated in the United States. RLUIPA establishes a fundamental national safeguard against discriminatory practices against religion in the state prison system and thus a potentially critical civil right for inmates," the brief declares. "This Court's guidance is critically needed to resolve the growing conflict over the scope of RLUIPA's 'substantial burden' test."
Donald Adkins, a Texas state prisoner from 1987 to 2004, brought a pro se claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), after he was barred by prison officials from assembling to observe the Sabbath and other holy days of his religion. Adkins was baptized into the Yahweh Evangelical Assembly (YEA). As the brief explains, "The fundamental religious tenets of YEA include a Sabbath, lasting from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown. YEA inmates incarcerated at Coffield are permitted to assemble and observe only one Sabbath per month and are not otherwise permitted to observe their holy days." Nonetheless, both the trial court and the Fifth Circuit rejected the RLUIPA claim of Mr. Adkins, who then retained The Becket Fund to pursue a Supreme Court appeal.
The brief points out that the Fifth Circuit's decision widened a conflict among the circuits over the meaning of the term "substantial burden" under RLUIPA. The Fifth Circuit claimed that "a government action or regulation does not rise to the level of a substantial burden on religious exercise if it merely prevents the adherent from either enjoying some benefit that is not otherwise generally available or acting in a way that is not otherwise generally allowed." But the brief noted, "The court made no effort to inquire into the hardship imposed on Mr. Adkins, or whether the application of the prison's rule would cause Mr. Adkins or other YEA adherents to 'forego religious precepts.'"
Becket Fund attorneys are the nation's leading experts on RLUIPA. The firm has been involved in more than 40 RLUIPA cases, both as primary counsel and amicus curiae, both for prisoners and for land-users, on behalf of Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and others. It also runs the www.RLUIPA.org website.
Resources & Documents
- Adkins v. Kaspar cert petition (PDF, 99.36KB)