Cutter v. Wilkinson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cutter v. Wilkinson

Argued March 21, 2005
Decided May 31, 2005

Full case name:	Jon B. Cutter, et al. v. Reginald Wilkinson, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, et al.

Citations:	544 U.S. 709; 125 S. Ct. 2113;161 L. Ed. 2d 1020;2005 U.S. LEXIS 4346;73 U.S.L.W. 4397;18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 317

Prior history:	Defendants' motion to dismiss denied, Cutter v. Wilkinson, U.S. Dist. Ct. S.D. Ohio, Feb. 25, 2002; reversed and remanded, 349 F.3d 257 (6th Cir. 2003); rehearing denied, Cutter v. Wilkinson, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 4294 (6th Cir., Mar. 3, 2004); cert. granted, 125 S. Ct. 308 (2004)

Subsequent history:	District Court affirmed, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 19695 (6th Cir., Sept. 13, 2005)

Holding

Section § 2000cc-1 of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act was not facially unconstitutional but was instead a permissible accommodation of religion under the First Amendment. Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded.

Court membership

Chief Justice: William Rehnquist
Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer

Case opinions

Majority by: Ginsburg
Joined by: unanimous
Concurrence by: Thomas

Laws applied

U.S. Const. amend. I; 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000cc-1 (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act)

Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005)^[1], is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court on May 31, 2005, which holds that under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), prisoners in facilities that accept federal funds cannot be denied accommodations necessary to engage in activities for the practice of their own religious beliefs.

The case was brought by five residents of an Ohio prison, which included two adherents of Asatru, a minister of the white supremacist Church of Jesus Christ Christian, a Wiccan and a Satanist.[2]

The Court returned a unanimous opinion, written by Justice Ginsburg, with a concurring opinion by Justice Thomas.