The same federal appeals court that last year declared the
words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional has
upheld a law designed to protect religious freedom from state interference.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld
the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which offers some
protection against government actions -- such as zoning laws and prison rules
-- that can be used to restrict religious practice.
The Dec. 27 ruling turned back a challenge from the state of California. A
group of Muslim inmates at Solano State Prison for Men in Vacaville sued state
officials in 1996 because they prohibited the men from growing beards or
attending Friday prayer services. The prisoners said Islam required the beards
and worship attendance. The prisoners sued under the First and 14th Amendments
to the Constitution, saying their rights to free exercise of religion were
being unfairly infringed.
After Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
in 2000, the inmates added a RLUIPA claim to their ongoing case.
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act encourages states and
municipalities to refrain from imposing "substantial" burdens on any
religious practice of individuals or groups unless the government has a
significant reason for doing so. The act was Congress' second attempt to
rectify a problem that religious-liberty advocates say was created by a 1990
U.S. Supreme Court decision.
The act uses the commerce and spending clauses of the Constitution to withhold
federal funding from states or municipalities that substantially burden
religious practice without a reason that serves a greater state interest. Other
laws use the same principle to encourage state and local governments to adopt
certain policies, such as the law that withholds federal highway funds to
states that do not raise their drinking age to 21.
In 1993 Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to try to
reinstate the strong legal protections for religious practice that existed
prior to the 1990 Supreme Court ruling. The 1993 act prohibited federal, state
and municipal governments from burdening religious practice without a
compelling cause. But the Supreme Court in 1997 overturned the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act as it applied to state and local governments, saying it
unconstitutionally imposed federal standards on those governments.
The newer Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act has a similar
effect to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but it uses federal coercion
-- in the form of funding restrictions -- rather than compulsion to achieve its
goal.
In the case of the Muslim prisoners, a lower court ruled the state of
California could not prohibit the men from growing beards or attending Friday
prayer services. State officials appealed to the 9th Circuit.
The opinion accompanying the 9th Circuit's decision, written by Judge Dorothy
Nelson, said the state was incorrect to claim that the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act violates the First Amendment. Instead, the court
said, the statute does just the opposite by extending the First Amendment's
protections.
"Protecting religious worship in institutions from substantial and
illegitimate burdens does promote the general welfare," Nelson wrote.
"The First Amendment, by prohibiting laws that proscribe the free exercise
of religion, demonstrates the great value placed on protecting religious
worship from impermissible government intrusion. By ensuring that governments
do not act to burden the exercise of religion in institutions, RLUIPA is
clearly in line with this positive constitutional value."
The opinion also rejected two other challenges from the state of California:
that RLUIPA was not authorized by the constitution's spending clause and that
its enactment to rectify a court decision violated the constitutional
separation of powers between branches of the federal government.
Members of the broad coalition that supported both the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act and RLUIPA hailed the most recent ruling. "The decision is
a welcome addition to the growing number of cases upholding the
constitutionality of RLUIPA," said Holly Hollman, general counsel for the
Washington-based Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs.
A request for comment from the California Attorney General's office was not
answered by press time. The attorney general's office had not determined
whether it would appeal the ruling as of Dec. 28, according to the San
Francisco Chronicle.
The case is Mayweathers vs. Newland.