RLUIPA.org
Madison v. Riter
Ira Madison is an inmate incarcerated at Virginia's Buckingham Correctional Center. He claims membership in the Church of God and Saints of Christ, who honor but do not worship Jesus Christ. They are commonly known as Hebrew Israelites, and the church requires its members to adhere to the dietary laws in Hebrew scriptures.
In August 2001, he filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, challenging the prison's refusal to provide him with a kosher diet as a violation of RLUIPA. Judge James C. Turk refused repeatedly to appoint counsel to represent him in the case, but when state officials served notice in early 2002 that they intended to challenge the constitutionality of RLUIPA, the U.S. Justice Department intervened in the case in order to defend the statute.
Shortly before oral arguments were scheduled to take place, attorneys Richard Menard and Michael Post, of the law firm of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, entered the case on Madison's behalf. They participated in the November 26, 2002, arguments on RLUIPA's constitutionality in Judge Turk's courtroom in Roanoke.
On January 23, 2003, Judge Turk issued a 30-page opinion (PDF format, 108K) in which he declared RLUIPA unconstitutional, and in his order (PDF format, 18K), he certified the issue of constitutionality for interlocutory appeal to the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
On June 9, 2003, The Becket Fund filed an amicus curiae brief (PDF format, 157K) with the Fourth Circuit on behalf of an exceptionally diverse group of organizations, including (in alphabetical order) the Aleph Institute, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, the Becket Fund, the Christian Legal Society, and People for the American Way. "Despite their vast religious and political diversity, the various amici share a common interest in assuring that [RLUIPA] is upheld as constitutional," the brief observes.
The amicus brief notes that "Federal courts have consistently upheld RLUIPA against a wide range of constitutional challenges," and that Judge Turk "was the first to hold otherwise." Barely a month after Turk's decision was issued, Wisconsin federal court Judge Lynn Adelman "reached the same result, relying heavily on the language and reasoning of [Judge Turk's] decision" in Ghashiyah v. Wis. Dept. of Corrections. "The core argument of both opinions is that the Establishment Clause forbids legislative accommodations of religious exercise if they accommodate only religious exercise. But this argument is premised on a view of the Establishment Clause held by only one sitting Justice of the Supreme Court," a reference to Justice Stevens. "Accordingly, the same argument has been rejected in every single reported case wherre it has been raised, not only against RLUIPA, but against RLUIPA's broader predecessor, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act."
In addition, Judge Turk's decision "failed to cite even once — not to mention discuss or attempt to distinguish — Ehlers-Renzi v. Connelly School of the Holy Child . . . where this Court [the Fourth Circuit] rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to a law that had the purpose and effect of alleviating burdens on religious exercise, and only religious exercise."
"Not only has the district court failed to extend due deference to an act of the federal legislature," the brief continues, "it appears to have ignored the decisions of this Court and of the federal judiciary more broadly."
On December 8, 2003, the Fourth Circuit panel unanimously overturned Judge Turk's opinion and remanded the case. In a decision (PDF format, 92K) written by Judge Harvie Wilkinson, the court held, "Because we find that Congress can accommodate religion in section 3 of RLUIPA without violating the Establishment Clause, we reverse. To hold otherwise and find an Establishment Clause violation would severely undermine the ability of our society to accommodate the most basic rights of conscience and belief in neutral yet constructive ways."
The Fourth Circuit upheld RLUIPA under each prong of the Lemon test:
Secular purpose: "RLUIPA is not designed to advance a particular religious viewpoint or even religion in general, but rather to facilitate opportunities for inmates to engage in the free exercise of religion. This secular goal of exempting religious exercise from regulatory burdens in a neutral fashion, as distinguished from advancing religion in any sense, is indeed permissible under the Establishment Clause. To be sure, Congress has no constitutional duty to remove or to mitigate the government-imposed burdens on prisoners' religious exercise. But the Supreme Court has held that Congress may choose to reduce government-imposed burdens on specific fundamental rights when it dees it appropriate."
Impermissible effect: "We cannot accept the theory advanced by the district court that Congress impermissibly advances religion when it acts to lift burdens on religious exercise yet fails to consider whether other rights are similarly threatened. There is no requirement that legislative protections for fundamental rights march in lockstep. The mere fact that RLUIPA seeks to lift government burdens on a prisoner's religious exercise does not mean that the statute must provide commensurate protections for other fundamental rights."
Excessive government entanglement: "RLUIPA does not require 'pervasive monitoring' by public authorities. RLUIPA itself minimizes the likelihood of entanglement through its carefully crafted enforcement provisions."
Therefore, the court held, "Section 3 of RLUIPA thus satisfies the three prongs of the Lemon test. The opposite conclusion, we believe, would work a profound change in the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence and in the ability of Congress to facilitate the free exercise of religion in this country. It would throw into question a wide variety of religious accommodation laws."
The court noted Virginia's argument that RLUIPA's compelling interest test "will bind its hands and make it nearly impossible for the Commonwealth to prevail if prisoners challenge burdens on their religious exercise."
"We do not make light of this concern," the court declared, but added that "the experience of federal correctional officials in complying with RLUIPA's prececessor statute, RFRA, suggests that the similar provisions of RLUIPA would not impose an unreasonable burden on state or local prisons. In the cases litigated under RFRA, federal constitutional officials have continued to prevail the overwhelming majority of the time." [RFRA, while declared unconstitutional as applied to the states, continues to govern federal agencies.]
The Fourth Circuit panel noted that it was addressing "only the Establishment Clause challenge to RLUIPA." The state of Virginia has also raised other challenges involving Spending Clause and Commerce Clause authority and the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments. "We do not address these issues in this interlocutory appeal because the district court has not yet had sufficient opportunity to consider them." The judgment of the lower court was "reversed, and remanded to the district court for further proceedings."
(Madison v. Riter, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Case No. 01-CV-596; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Case No. 03-6362)
Articles & News Items
- "Virginia federal judge misread Constitution, precedent in RLUIPA decision," November 29, 2010