| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | Prisoners claim their religious freedoms (protected under RLUIPA) are violated by regulations restricting their dress, meals, meetings, etc. |
| Posture: | No information present. |
| Issue: | Is RLUIPA § 3 (the Institutionalized Persons Provision) consistent with the Establishment Clause of 1A? |
| Holding: | Yes. |
| Rule: | The government can't establish a religion, but it can accomodate them, to some reasonable extent. (A prison accepting federal funds can't deny prisoners accomodations necessary for their religious practices; RLUIPA is not facially unconstitutional). |
| Reasoning: | Not much, really. There is "room for play in the joints between the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses" (citing Locke v. Davey, and this means that a law saying, as RLUIPA does, that "no government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution," is OK. |
| Dicta: | |