www.oldenwilde.org
The following are summaries and specifics of important Federal and State legal precedents, as well as their source info and verifying links, allowing U.S. Wiccan inmates Tarot and other religious rights:
THE
LAW AND THE COURTS SPECIFICALLY SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF WICCAN PRISONERS IN STATE
PRISONS TO USE TAROT CARDS, AS THE FOLLOWING SIX NUMBERED EXHIBITS PROVE:
SUMMARIES
OF EXHIBITS:
# 1 Ð VIRGINIA:
ACLU-VA IS PURSUING MULTIPLE RELIGIOUS-RIGHTS LAWSUITS AGAINST THE VA DEPT. OF
CORRECTIONS ON THE BASIS THAT THEY ARE VIOLATING RLUIPA, THE "RELIGIOUS
LAND USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT" THAT CONGRESS PASSED IN 2000
TO PROTECT PRISONERS AGAINST RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION.
THE
FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF THE ACLU AND RLUIPA IN ITS FIRST CASE
EARLY IN 2007.
# 2 - TEXT OF &
LINK TO CUTTER V. WILKINSON, THE 2005 U.S. SUPREME COURT RULING THAT PRISON
SYSTEMS MUST ACCOMMODATE WICCA AND OTHER "NON-MAINSTREAM" FAITHS.
THE
PLAINTIFF, CUTTER, WAS ONE OF A GROUP OF WICCAN PRISONERS IN OHIO WHO
ORIGINALLY APPROACHED US WITH COMPLAINTS OF RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION, AND WE
ADVISED HIM HOW TO SECURE LEGAL REMEDY. HE FOLLOWED OUR ADVICE -- AND WON A
U.S. SUPREME COURT VICTORY.
# 3 - ARTICLE ON
IMPLICATIONS OF CUTTER V. WILKINSON, U.S. SUPREME COURT, 2005, RULING UPHOLDING
RLUIPA.
# 4 - GOODMAN V.
SNYDER IS A 2003 CASE IN ILLINOIS THAT SPECIFICALLY CONCERNED A WICCAN
PRISONER'S RIGHT TO HAVE TAROT CARDS.
THE
COURT RULED IN THE PRISONER'S FAVOR, CITING RLUIPA.
# 5 - GOOD THUMBNAIL
DESCRIPTION OF RLUIPA, BY THE BECKET FUND FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, WHO, LIKE THE
ACLU, IS ALSO PURSUING NUMEROUS LAWSUITS ON IN THIS ARENA NATIONWIDE.
# 6- TEXT OF RLUIPA,
THE "RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT."
==========================
# 1
"RLUIPA prohibits state prisons and other institutions that receive
federal funds from interfering with the right of inmates to practice their
religion, unless the institution can cite a security or similarly important
reason for the prohibition."
THIS
SPECIFIC ISSUE HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED AND THE COURTS REJECTED ILLINOIS' CLAIM
THAT INMATES POSSESSING TAROT WAS A SECURITY RISK -- SEE #4, BELOW.
SOURCE:
http://www.acluva.org/newsreleases2007/Jan6.html
American
Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, News Release, January 6, 2007:
Appeals
Court Again Upholds Federal Law Guaranteeing Religious Rights of Prisoners --
State
fails for second time to have prisonersÕ rights law declared unconstitutional
Richmond,
VA --
The
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has again ruled that the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) is constitutional. In a ruling issued on
December 29, the Court held that the 2000 law guaranteeing prisoners the right
to practice their religion does not violate the Spending Clause.
This
is not the first time the Fourth Circuit has addressed the constitutionality of
RLUIPA. In December 2003, the Fourth Circuit reversed a lower court ruling that
the law violated the separation of church and state by affording extra
protections to prisonersÕ religious rights but not their other fundamental
rights.
RLUIPA
prohibits state prisons and other institutions that receive federal funds from
interfering with the right of inmates to practice their religion, unless the institution
can cite a security or similarly important reason for the prohibition.
The
Virginia Department of Corrections challenged RLUIPA both on grounds that it
violated separation of church and state and the Spending Clause. The ACLU of
Virginia filed amicus briefs arguing that RLUIPA does not advance religion but
merely relieves the burdens imprisonment places on inmatesÕ religious
practices, and that the federal government is well within its authority to
require implementation of the law within institutions that use its funds.
The
case, Madison v. Riter, was brought by Ira Madison, an inmate at Buckingham
Correctional Center who is a member of the 100 year-old Church of God and
Saints of Christ. In August 2001, Madison filed a RLUIPA lawsuit in U.S.
District Court in Roanoke to compel Buckingham prison officials to provide him
with a meal consistent with his religious beliefs. The meal, called the Common
Fare Diet, is typically made available to Islamic and Jewish inmates.
ÒThis
is an important victory for those who are incarcerated in VirginiaÕs prisons,Ó
said ACLU of Virginia executive director Kent Willis. ÒFor now, at least, they
can be assured that their religious rights will not be taken away without a
very good reason.Ó
The
ACLU of Virginia is representing Virginia prisoners in a separate lawsuit
challenging the Virginia Department of CorrectionsÕ policy requiring all
inmates to cut their hair short and shave their facial hair. That case, in
which the ACLU represents Muslim and Rastafarian prisoners whose religion
requires beards or long hair, is also in the Fourth Circuit.
===============
# 2
TEXT TO AND EXCERPT OF CUTTER V. WILKINSON RULING
SOURCE:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-9877.pdf.
Page 1
(Slip Opinion)
OCTOBER
TERM, 2004
SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
CUTTER,
ET AL
v.
WILKINSON, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, ET AL
CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
No.
03Ð9877. Argued March 21, 2005 Ñ Decided May 31, 2005
Section
3 of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
of 2000
(RLUIPA), 42 U. S. C. ¤2000ccÐ1(a)(1)Ð(2), provides in part:
ÒNo
government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a
person residing in or confined to an institution,Ó unless the burden furthers
Òa compelling governmental interest,Ó and does so by Òthe least restrictive
means.Ó
Petitioners,
current and former inmates of Ohio state institutions, allege, inter alia, that
respondent prison officials violated ¤3 by failing to accommodate petitionersÕ
exercise of their Ònon-mainstreamÓ religions in a variety of ways.
Respondents
moved to dismiss that claim, arguing, among other things, that ¤3, on its face,
improperly advances religion in violation of the First AmendmentÕs
Establishment Clause. Rejecting that argument, the District Court stated that
RLUIPA permits safety and securityÑundisputedly compelling state interestsÑto
outweigh an inmateÕs claim to a religious accommodation. On the thin record
before it, the court could not find that enforcement of RLUIPA, inevitably,
would
compromise
prison security.
Reversing
on interlocutory appeal, the Sixth Circuit held that ¤3 impermissibly advances
religionby giving greater protection to religious rights than to other
constitutionally protected rights, and suggested that affording religious
prisoners superior rights might encourage prisoners to become religious.
Held:
Section 3 of RLUIPA, on its face, qualifies as a permissible accommodation that
is not barred by the Establishment Clause. Pp. 8Ð16.
***********
# 3
[ARTICLE ON CUTTER V. WILKINSON]
SOURCE:
MSNBC.COM
Court
upholds prisoners' religious rights
Justices
say unusual faiths must be accommodated
By Alex
Johnson, Reporter, MSNBC
3:12 p.m.
ET May 31, 2005
The
Supreme Court sided Tuesday with an unusual alliance of the Bush
administration, liberal activists and conservative religious groups, agreeing
that state prisons must accommodate the beliefs of witches, Satanists and other
followers of non-mainstream religions.
The
justices agreed unanimously with inmates in Ohio who complained that they were
denied access to religious literature and the opportunity to conduct services.
Ohio prison officials had argued that the inmates' requests hampered their
ability to manage prisons.
The
court overturned a ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in
Cincinnati, which struck down part of the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 as an unconstitutional violation of the
separation of church and state. The act says states that receive federal money
for their prison systems should not "impose a substantial burden on the
religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution"
unless they can show a compelling
reason.
Three
other federal appeals courts had upheld the law; Ohio joined the plaintiffs in
asking the Supreme Court to resolve the conflict.
Backing
for religious freedom
The
ruling Tuesday solidifies a campaign by numerous politically diverse groups -
from the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of
Church and State to the American Center for Law and Justice and the U.S.
Justice Department - to limit government restrictions on religious expression.
Ohio
argued that the law served as an impermissible endorsement of religion in
violation of the First Amendment because it effectively made religious inmates
a special class. Supporters of the law argued that mainstream religious beliefs
were already accommodated in prisons and said it simply extended the same
protection to unconventional faiths.
=================
# 4 [AN
ARTICLE DESCRIBING HOW RLUIPA IS EVEN STRONGER IN THE WAKE OF SUPREME COURT
RULING ON CUTTER V. WILKINSON AND GOODMAN V. SNYDER]
SOURCE:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:CiVkb4JjwHIJ:www.wcl.american.edu/journal/genderlaw/14/johnson3.pdf+%22Goodman+v.+Snyder%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&client=firefox-a
"...
in Goodman v. Snyder, an Illinois prisoner brought a RLUIPA claim because
prison officials refused to provide him with the lacto-ovo vegetarian diet
required by his Wiccan religion and also because the officials denied his
request for Tarot cards.
The United States District Court for the East District of Illinois held that the prisonÕs refusal to provide the inmate with Tarot cards violated the inmateÕs rights under RLUIPA, even though the he never claimed the Tarot cards were central to his religious practice.
See
Goodman, 2003 WL 715650, at *1 (note that the prison officials argued that the
use of Tarot cards is often prohibited in prisons because they contained
symbols, such as the devil and pitchfork, used by gangs).
===================
# 5
[SUMMARY OF RLUIPA]
SOURCE:
http://www.rluipa.com/
Sponsored
by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
"RLUIPA
is a federal statute that was passed in 2000 to provide stronger protection for
religious freedom in the land-use and prison contexts. (Click here for the full
text of the law. [SEE # X, ABOVE) RLUIPA has since been asserted in dozens of
lawsuits, prompting widespread media coverage and scholarly attention. The
purpose of this website is to track the latest developments under the Act in
all three arenas: in the courts of law, the court of public opinion, and the
academy."
# 6
[THE FULL TEXT OF RLUIPA. BUT FIRST, THE RELEVANT SECTION AND DEFINITION:]
"SEC.
3. PROTECTION OF RELIGIOUS EXERCISE OF INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS.
(a)
GENERAL RULE- No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise
of a person residing in or confined to an institution, as defined in section 2
of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (42 U.S.C. 1997), even if
the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government
demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person--
(1) is
in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is
the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental
interest.
(b)
SCOPE OF APPLICATION- This section applies in any case in which--
(1) the
substantial burden is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal
financial assistance; or
(2) the
substantial burden affects, or removal of that substantial burden would affect,
commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian
tribes."
"(6)
PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY- The term `program or activity' means all of the operations
of any entity as described in paragraph (1) or (2) of section 606 of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d-4a)." [WHICH SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO
STATE GOVT. AGENCIES]
------------------
# 6
[Full Text of RLUIPA]
June 2,
2005
106th
CONGRESS, 2nd Session
S. 2869
AN ACT
To protect religious liberty, and for other purposes.
Be it
enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled,
SECTION
1. SHORT TITLE.
This
Act may be cited as the `Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
of 2000'.
SEC. 2.
PROTECTION OF LAND USE AS RELIGIOUS EXERCISE.
(a)
SUBSTANTIAL BURDENS-
(1)
GENERAL RULE- No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in
a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a
person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government
demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or
institution--
(A) is
in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is
the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental
interest.
(2)
SCOPE OF APPLICATION- This subsection applies in any case in which--
(A) the
substantial burden is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal
financial assistance, even if the burden results from a rule of general
applicability;
(B) the
substantial burden affects, or removal of that substantial burden would affect,
commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes,
even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability; or
(C) the
substantial burden is imposed in the implementation of a land use regulation or
system of land use regulations, under which a government makes, or has in place
formal or informal procedures or practices that permit the government to make,
individualized assessments of the proposed uses for the property involved.
(b) DISCRIMINATION
AND EXCLUSION-
(1)
EQUAL TERMS- No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a
manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms
with a nonreligious assembly or institution.
(2)
NONDISCRIMINATION- No government shall impose or implement a land use
regulation that discriminates against any assembly or institution on the basis
of religion or religious denomination.
(3)
EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITS- No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation
that--
(A)
totally excludes religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or
(B)
unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a
jurisdiction.
SEC. 3.
PROTECTION OF RELIGIOUS EXERCISE OF INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS.
(a) GENERAL
RULE- No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise
of a person residing in or confined to an institution, as defined in section 2
of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (42 U.S.C. 1997), even if
the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government
demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person--
(1) is
in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is
the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental
interest.
(b)
SCOPE OF APPLICATION- This section applies in any case in which--
(1) the
substantial burden is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal
financial assistance; or
(2) the
substantial burden affects, or removal of that substantial burden would affect,
commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes.
SEC. 4.
JUDICIAL RELIEF.
(a)
CAUSE OF ACTION- A person may assert a violation of this Act as a claim or
defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a
government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be
governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the
Constitution.
(b)
BURDEN OF PERSUASION- If a plaintiff produces prima facie evidence to support a
claim alleging a violation of the Free Exercise Clause or a violation of
section 2, the government shall bear the burden of persuasion on any element of
the claim, except that the plaintiff shall bear the burden of persuasion on whether
the law (including a regulation) or government practice that is challenged by
the claim substantially burdens the plaintiff's exercise of religion.
(c)
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT- Adjudication of a claim of a violation of section 2 in a
non-Federal forum shall not be entitled to full faith and credit in a Federal
court unless the claimant had a full and fair adjudication of that claim in the
non-Federal forum.
(d)
ATTORNEYS' FEES- Section 722(b) of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is
amended--
(1) by
inserting `the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000,'
after `Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993,'; and
(2) by
striking the comma that follows a comma.
(e) PRISONERS-
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to amend or repeal the Prison Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 (including provisions of law amended by that Act).
(f)
AUTHORITY OF UNITED STATES TO ENFORCE THIS ACT- The United States may bring an
action for injunctive or declaratory relief to enforce compliance with this
Act. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to deny, impair, or
otherwise affect any right or authority of the Attorney General, the United
States, or any agency, officer, or employee of the United States, acting under
any law other than this subsection, to institute or intervene in any
proceeding.
(g)
LIMITATION- If the only jurisdictional basis for applying a provision of this
Act is a claim that a substantial burden by a government on religious exercise
affects, or that removal of that substantial burden would affect, commerce with
foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes, the provision
shall not apply if the government demonstrates that all substantial burdens on,
or the removal of all substantial burdens from, similar religious exercise
throughout the Nation would not lead in the aggregate to a substantial effect
on commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian
tribes.
SEC. 5.
RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.
(a)
RELIGIOUS BELIEF UNAFFECTED- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
authorize any government to burden any religious belief.
(b)
RELIGIOUS EXERCISE NOT REGULATED- Nothing in this Act shall create any basis
for restricting or burdening religious exercise or for claims against a
religious organization including any religiously affiliated school or
university, not acting under color of law.
(c)
CLAIMS TO FUNDING UNAFFECTED- Nothing in this Act shall create or preclude a
right of any religious organization to receive funding or other assistance from
a government, or of any person to receive government funding for a religious
activity, but this Act may require a government to incur expenses in its own
operations to avoid imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise.
(d)
OTHER AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON FUNDING UNAFFECTED- Nothing in this Act
shall--
(1)
authorize a government to regulate or affect, directly or indirectly, the
activities or policies of a person other than a government as a condition of
receiving funding or other assistance; or
(2)
restrict any authority that may exist under other law to so regulate or affect,
except as provided in this Act.
(e)
GOVERNMENTAL DISCRETION IN ALLEVIATING BURDENS ON RELIGIOUS EXERCISE- A
government may avoid the preemptive force of any provision of this Act by
changing the policy or practice that results in a substantial burden on
religious exercise, by retaining the policy or practice and exempting the
substantially burdened religious exercise, by providing exemptions from the
policy or practice for applications that substantially burden religious
exercise, or by any other means that eliminates the substantial burden.
(f)
EFFECT ON OTHER LAW- With respect to a claim brought under this Act, proof that
a substantial burden on a person's religious exercise affects, or removal of
that burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, among the several
States, or with Indian tribes, shall not establish any inference or presumption
that Congress intends that any religious exercise is, or is not, subject to any
law other than this Act.
(g)
BROAD CONSTRUCTION- This Act shall be construed in favor of a broad protection
of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this Act
and the Constitution.
(h) NO
PREEMPTION OR REPEAL- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt State
law, or repeal Federal law, that is equally as protective of religious exercise
as, or more protective of religious exercise than, this Act.
(i) SEVERABILITY-
If any provision of this Act or of an amendment made by this Act, or any
application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be
unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act,
and the application of the provision to any other person or circumstance shall
not be affected.
SEC. 6.
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE UNAFFECTED.
Nothing
in this Act shall be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address that
portion of the first amendment to the Constitution prohibiting laws respecting
an establishment of religion (referred to in this section as the `Establishment
Clause'). Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent
permissible under the Establishment Clause, shall not constitute a violation of
this Act. In this section, the term `granting', used with respect to government
funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government
funding, benefits, or exemptions.
SEC. 7.
AMENDMENTS TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT.
(a)
DEFINITIONS- Section 5 of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42
U.S.C. 2000bb-2) is amended--
(1) in
paragraph (1), by striking `a State, or a subdivision of a State' and inserting
`or of a covered entity';
(2) in
paragraph (2), by striking `term' and all that follows through `includes' and
inserting `term `covered entity' means'; and
(3) in
paragraph (4), by striking all after `means' and inserting `religious exercise,
as defined in section 8 of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act of 2000.'.
(b)
CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 6(a) of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of
1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb-3(a)) is amended by striking `and State'.
SEC. 8.
DEFINITIONS.
In this
Act:
(1) CLAIMANT-
The term `claimant' means a person raising a claim or defense under this Act.
(2)
DEMONSTRATES- The term `demonstrates' means meets the burdens of going forward
with the evidence and of persuasion.
(3)
FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE- The term `Free Exercise Clause' means that portion of the
first amendment to the Constitution that proscribes laws prohibiting the free
exercise of religion.
(4)
GOVERNMENT- The term `government'--
(A)
means--
(i) a
State, county, municipality, or other governmental entity created under the
authority of a State;
(ii)
any branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official of an entity
listed in clause (i); and
(iii)
any other person acting under color of State law; and
(B) for
the purposes of sections 4(b) and 5, includes the United States, a branch,
department, agency, instrumentality, or official of the United States, and any
other person acting under color of Federal law.
(5)
LAND USE REGULATION- The term `land use regulation' means a zoning or
landmarking law, or the application of such a law, that limits or restricts a
claimant's use or development of land (including a structure affixed to land),
if the claimant has an ownership, leasehold, easement, servitude, or other
property interest in the regulated land or a contract or option to acquire such
an interest.
(6)
PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY- The term `program or activity' means all of the operations
of any entity as described in paragraph (1) or (2) of section 606 of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d-4a).
(7)
RELIGIOUS EXERCISE-
(A) IN
GENERAL- The term `religious exercise' includes any exercise of religion,
whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.
(B)
RULE- The use, building, or conversion of real property for the purpose of
religious exercise shall be considered to be religious exercise of the person
or entity that uses or intends to use the property for that purpose.
=====================