From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2005 United States Supreme Court case
Cutter v. Wilkinson 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 (more )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 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, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 4294 (6th Cir., Mar. 3, 2004); cert. granted, 125 S. Ct. 308 (2004) Subsequent District Court affirmed, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 19695 (6th Cir., Sept. 13, 2005) 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.
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy David Souter · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Majority Ginsburg, joined by unanimous Concurrence Thomas U.S. Const. amend. I ; 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act)
Cutter v. Wilkinson , 544 U.S. 709 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), facilities that accept federal funds cannot deny prisoners accommodations that are necessary to engage in activities for the practice of their own religious beliefs.
RLUIPA prohibited the federal government from imposing a substantial burden on prisoners' freedom of religion. 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 filed suit.[1] The men stated in federal district court that prison officials violated RLUIPA by failing to accommodate the inmates' exercise of their "nonmainstream" religions. Prison officials argued that the act "improperly advanced religion and thus violated the First Amendment's establishment clause which prohibited government from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion." The district court had originally rejected that argument and ruled for the inmates. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals had reversed the decision.
Question presented [ edit ]
Did a federal law prohibiting government from burdening prisoners' religious exercise violate the First Amendment's establishment clause?
Decision of the Court [ edit ]
The Court returned a unanimous opinion, written by Justice Ginsburg , with a concurring opinion by Justice Thomas . Ruling in favor of the inmates, the Court held that, on its face, RLUIPA made an accommodation allowed by the First Amendment. The Court noted that constitutional problems could arise if RLUIPA were "enforced improperly and religious prisoners received favored treatment, or if religious exercise and security concerns were not properly balanced."[2]
See also [ edit ]
References [ edit ]
External links [ edit ]
Public displays and ceremonies Statutory religious exemptions Public funding Religion in public schools Private religious speech Internal church affairs Taxpayer standing Blue laws Other
Unprotected speech
Incitement and sedition Libel and false speechFighting words and the heckler's veto True threats Obscenity
Rosen v. United States (1896)
United States v. One Book Called Ulysses (S.D.N.Y. 1933)
Roth v. United States (1957)
One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958)
Smith v. California (1959)
Marcus v. Search Warrant (1961)
MANual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day (1962)
Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)
Quantity of Books v. Kansas (1964)
Ginzburg v. United States (1966)
Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966)
Redrup v. New York (1967)
Ginsberg v. New York (1968)
Stanley v. Georgia (1969)
United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs (1971)
Kois v. Wisconsin (1972)
Miller v. California (1973)
Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973)
United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film (1973)
Jenkins v. Georgia (1974)
Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad (1975)
Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (1975)
Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. (1976)
Vance v. Universal Amusement Co., Inc. (1980)
American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hudnut (7th Cir. 1985)
People v. Freeman (Cal. 1988)
United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. (1994)
Reno v. ACLU (1997)
United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. (2000)
City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. (2002)
Ashcroft v. ACLU I (2002)
United States v. American Library Ass'n (2003)
Ashcroft v. ACLU II (2004)
Nitke v. Gonzales (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
United States v. Williams (2008)
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland (6th Cir. 2009)
United States v. Kilbride (9th Cir. 2009)
United States v. Stevens (2010)
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n (2011)
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2012)
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (2025)
Speech integral to criminal conduct
Strict scrutiny Vagueness Symbolic speech versus conductContent-based restrictions Content-neutral restrictions
Compelled speech Compelled subsidy of others' speech
Government grants and subsidies Government as speaker Loyalty oaths School speech Public employees Hatch Act and similar lawsLicensing and restriction of speech Commercial speech
Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942)
Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. (1970)
Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations (1973)
Lehman v. Shaker Heights (1974)
Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar (1975)
Bigelow v. Virginia (1975)
Virginia State Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976)
Linmark Assoc., Inc. v. Township of Willingboro (1977)
Carey v. Population Services International (1977)
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977)
In re Primus (1978)
Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association (1978)
Friedman v. Rogers (1979)
Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n (1980)
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980)
Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego (1981)
In re R.M.J. (1982)
Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. (1982)
Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio (1985)
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n of California (1986)
Posadas de Puerto Rico Assoc. v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico (1986)
San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee (1987)
Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association (1988)
Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind (1988)
State University of New York v. Fox (1989)
Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois (1990)
City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network (1993)
Edenfield v. Fane (1993)
United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co. (1993)
Ibanez v. Florida Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation, Bd. of Accountancy (1994)
Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (1995)
Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co. (1995)
Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc. (1995)
44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996)
Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliot, Inc. (1997)
Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Assn., Inc. v. United States (1999)
Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Co. (1999)
United States v. United Foods Inc. (2001)
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (2001)
Thompson v. Western States Medical Center (2002)
Nike, Inc. v. Kasky (2003)
Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass'n (2005)
Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy (2007)
Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States (2010)
Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA (2010)
Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (2011)
Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman (2017)
Matal v. Tam (2017)
Iancu v. Brunetti (2019)
Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants (2020)
Vidal v. Elster (2024)
Campaign finance and political speech Anonymous speech State action Official retaliation Boycotts Prisons
Organizations Future Conduct Solicitation Membership restriction Primaries and elections