Cutter v. Wilkinson

In Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005) 544 U.S. 709, the United States Supreme Court explored the "compelling governmental interest" prong of RLUIPA, noting that it did not read RLUIPA "to elevate accommodation of religious observances over an institution's need to maintain order and safety. The decisions indicate that an accommodation must be measured so that it does not override other significant interests." (Cutter, supra, 544 U.S. 709, 722.) The court further noted: "Lawmakers supporting RLUIPA were mindful of the urgency of discipline, order, safety, and security in penal institutions. They anticipated that courts would apply the Act's standard with 'due deference to the experience and expertise of prison and jail administrators in establishing necessary regulations and procedures to maintain good order, security and discipline, consistent with consideration of costs and limited resources.'" (Id. at p. 723.) Additionally, the court noted: "Should inmate requests for religious accommodations become excessive, impose unjustified burdens on other institutionalized persons, or jeopardize the effective functioning of an institution, the facility would be free to resist the imposition." (Id. at p. 726.) Lest any doubt remain, the court then repeated its message a final time: "It bears repetition . . . that prison security is a compelling state interest, and that deference is due to institutional officials' expertise in this area." (Id. at p. 725, fn. 13.)