October Term 2004 · Docket 03-9877

Does RLUIPA violate the Establishment Clause by easing prison burdens on religious exercise?

Prisoners argue the law unconstitutionally advances religion. The government argues it follows tradition by removing state-imposed burdens.

Official caption
Cutter v. Wilkinson
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Clement argued the government does not violate the Establishment Clause when it removes burdens on religious exercise.

    Mr. Goldberger stated the underlying facts involving the motion to dismiss are in serious dispute.

    Mr. Cole argued RLUIPA directly and impermissibly advances religion in the unique prison environment.

    Justice Stevens questioned whether federal money involvement lessens the burden of defending the statute under the Establishment Clause.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests whether a federal law violates the Constitution. The law requires prisons to ease burdens on religious exercise. Prisoners claim this advances religion. The government claims this follows tradition.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 21, 2005.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Prisoners want the law struck down as unconstitutional.

The government wants the law upheld as constitutional.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Prisoners argue the law impermissibly advances religion in prisons.

The government argues easing burdens follows the best traditions.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Stevens asked if the Establishment Clause issue matches City of Boerne.

Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if Congress can rewrite the Constitution differently than the Court did in Boerne.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

Prisoners face state-imposed burdens on religious exercise. The law requires officials to ease those burdens. This creates a unique incentive for religion in prisons. The outcome defines the limits of federal power over religious accommodation.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON