Before Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which requires the government to justify any significant burden on the free exercise of religion with a compelling interest, and to show that the procedure that creates the burden is the least restrictive means possible in furthering that interest, prisoners’ rights cases were governed by Turner v. Safley. In Turner the Supreme Court stated that prison regulations burdening fundamental rights must be reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives, and leave open alternative means of exercising the rights at issue. This case involved a challenge to two regulations: the first banned correspondence between prisoners at different institutions, and the second barred prisoners from marrying civilians. The Court upheld the first regulation, finding that banning correspondence served legitimate security concerns related to potential escape plans and the ability of prisoners to compare living conditions at different prisons, which might cause unrest. The marriage regulation, however, was not connected to any legitimate concern, and was thus found to violate the prisoners’ rights. RLUIPA, passed in 2000, resulted in a significantly heightened standard that made it more difficult for the government to justify significant burdens on prisoner’s religious rights.
Opens in a new window