Home » Posts tagged "Court"

GAO Validates Drug Court Effectiveness

GAO Validates Drug Court Effectiveness












Alexandria, VA (PRWEB) December 19, 2011

The National Association of Drug Court Professionals is proud to announce that the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its fourth report on Drug Courts last week, concluding once again that Drug Courts reduce recidivism and save money. The report, ADULT DRUG COURTS: Studies Show Courts Reduce Recidivism, but DOJ Could Enhance Future Performance Measure Revision Efforts, validated existing Drug Court research by examining over 30 scientifically rigorous studies involving more than 50 Drug Courts throughout the country. The GAO was established to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government. The scope of this report was mandated by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.

Of the 32 Drug Court programs reviewed, 31 showed reductions in recidivism. Of those that performed statistical comparisons, the large majority (72%) reported statistically significant reductions in crime for the Drug Court participants. This conclusion is very much in line with those of several scientific meta-analyses, which all found that 75% to 80% of Drug Courts significantly reduced crime. In the GAO analysis, Drug Court participants were found to have up to a 26 percent lower rate of recidivism than comparison groups. Re-arrest rates for Drug Court graduates were found to be up to 58 percent below comparison groups.

“GAO reports are objective, fact-based, nonpartisan, and held to the highest research standards,” said Dr. Doug Marlowe, Chief of Science, Law and Policy with the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. “This report reinforces the scientific merit of Drug Court research, confirming that Drug Courts are a proven solution for reducing drug abuse and crime. We know beyond a reasonable doubt that at least 75 to 80 percent of Drug Courts achieve reliable and significant reductions in crime. This translates into large cost-savings for taxpayers averaging more than $ 6,000 per participant.”

The GAO reviewed 11 cost-benefit studies published between 2004 through 2011. These studies provided information to determine net-benefit, defined as the monetary benefit of reduced recidivism accrued to society from the Drug Court program through reduced future victimization and justice system expenditures, less the net costs of the Drug Court program. Drug Courts were found to have a cost-benefit as high as $ 47,852 per participant.

“The GAO report leaves little doubt that Drug Courts must remain a cornerstone of criminal justice reform,” said West Huddleston, CEO of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. “Now more than ever, we must invest in cost-effective programs with proven results. Drug Courts break the cycle of drug addiction and crime, and do so with greater effectiveness and at less expense than any other strategy.”

The GAO included in its review the National Institute of Justice’s Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE), which it called “the most comprehensive study on Drug Courts to date.” This five-year study published in July also confirmed that Drug Courts significantly reduce recidivism and drug use. Additional benefits were found to include increases in employment, education, family functioning and financial stability. The MADCE cost-benefit analysis determined benefits of $ 6,208 to society per participant. The GAO concluded, “This is the broadest and most ambitious study of Drug Courts to date; it is well done analytically, and the results, as they relate to the impact of Drug Courts, are transparent and well described.”

In addition to examining Drug Court research, the GAO analyzed improvements made to the Department of Justice (DOJ) Drug Court grant program since the last GAO review in 2002. The GAO report indicated that steps taken by the Bureau of Justice Assistance within DOJ to redesign performance measures, including a new process used to assess a sample of Adult Drug Court grantees’ performance across a range of variables, have improved the implementation of federal Adult Drug Court grants. The GAO concluded that while there are still areas for improvement, DOJ’s process of revising its performance measures adheres to key practices.

“The Bureau of Justice Assistance within the Department of Justice continues to demonstrate outstanding leadership in administering and reporting on Adult Drug Court grants, and striving to improve data collection,” said Huddleston. “The GAO report clearly demonstrates the importance of new BJA performance measures, and the responsibility of grant recipients to comply with reporting requirements.”

About the National Association of Drug Court Professionals

Drug Courts combine rigorous drug treatment and accountability to compel and support drug-using offenders to change their lives. After 22 years of innovation, there are now over 2,600 Drug Courts located in all 50 states. Since 1994, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP), a non-profit organization 501 (c) (3) representing over 27,000 multidisciplinary justice professionals and community leaders, has worked tirelessly at the national, state and local level to create and enhance Drug Courts. NADCP and its professional services branch, the National Drug Court Institute, have directly trained 65,440 Drug Court professionals from all fifty states and U.S. territories as well as fourteen other countries. The Drug Court field has grown from 347 programs in 1998 to 2,600 Drug Courts currently in operation. NADCP is recognized as the experts in the field of addiction and the criminal justice system. For more information, visit http://www.AllRise.org.

###





















Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.







Posted on January 10, 2012 by , Reply

Fleming Says President’s Supreme Court Nomination Surrender to Extremists

Fleming Says President’s Supreme Court Nomination Surrender to Extremists










Clinton, MS (PRWEB) November 2, 2005

State Representative Erik R. Fleming, D-Clinton, an announced Democratic candidate for the US Senate in 2006, offered a response today to President Bush’s nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court.

Fleming said: “It is with deep regret to hear that the President has nominated Federal District Judge Samuel Alito to be his nominee for the United States Supreme Court in an apparent surrender to the extremist faction of his party.

“Alito has been referred to as ‘Scalia-like’ in his position on the federal bench, which cannot bode well for the majority of American citizens, whose human rights and constitutional rights hang in the balance.

“It is important that the Supreme Court be a bastion of protection against those who seek to abandon the fundamental concept that the United States Constitution is a living, breathing document. Those strict constructionists would have opposed the very decisions that Rosa Parks and others fought so valiantly for. Any attempt to appease this constituency is, in my opinion, a detrimental mistake for the sake of political gain.

“Whereas the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Court was filled with concerns about her judicial and constitutional competency, at least the thought process of seeking a moderate jurist to replace a moderate jurist was commendable. I am disappointed that the President has decided at this time in American political history to abandon that strategy in order to mend political fences.

“It was my hope that the President would have stayed above the partisan fray, as he did with the Roberts nomination. However, it is obvious that he has chosen not to do so, and that is indeed disappointing.”

###


















Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.







Find More The Constitution Press Releases

Posted on August 22, 2011 by , Reply

California Family Law Attorney Issues Statement on Supreme Court Proposition 8 Ruling

California Family Law Attorney Issues Statement on Supreme Court Proposition 8 Ruling











Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) June 2, 2009

California Family Law attorney Mary Ellen Waller says the recent ruling by the California Supreme Court on the validity of Proposition 8 is a dangerous ruling for all minorities. The following is a statement by Waller analyzing the decision:

The Court has handed the mob a loaded weapon that can too easily be used to pursue inappropriate discriminatory goals and agendas. The ruling undermines the judiciary’s authority to protect minority rights and it substantially alters the California Constitution as a document of independent force and effect.

In its ruling, the Court has altered the procedural process regarding Constitutional initiatives having to do with civil rights. They have done so by removing the procedural requirement that initiatives affecting only individual liberties go through the more rigorous, deliberative process known as Constitutional revision (as opposed to Constitutional amendment). The implications of this ruling have a far-reaching and chilling effect on state constitutional rights as this ruling has eased constraints on the ability of the majority interests in our State to discriminate. Indeed, it has been a hallmark of our State Constitution, our Federal Constitution, and the very fabric upon which our political and social systems in this nation were formed that we operate on a system of majority rule with protection for minority rights. Great and honorable steps against “tyranny of the majority” have been undertaken throughout our history, and sweeping policy attitudinal changes and reforms have been imposed to protect the rights of the minority in society.

This is why, for example, it is against the law to refuse to hire an individual because of their race or ethnic origin; why it is illegal to deny equal access to government based on a suspect classification (such as race, gender, religion, etc). These issues are very often hotly contested and debated, yet to our credit as a people very often we have been able to rise above our own individual prejudices and dislikes. We have enacted laws that are designed to protect the members of a minority group, members of, in Constitutional parlance, a “suspect class.” Race is generally considered to be the most easily recognizable example of a suspect classification, and there are indeed many others as well.

This assessment of the high Court’s “invitation to discriminate” falls far short of mere speculation or conjecture; a discriminatory pattern of behavior by the majority towards minorities is a well-documented reality throughout history. Let us recall that Nazi Germany started with German citizens being stripped of their rights for no reason other than their religion, Japanese-Americans of this country went from curfew to internment, women were not allowed to vote, and blacks were “separate”, “but equal,” a concept that is all too blatantly adopted by the Proposition 8 ruling. The Proposition 8 ruling opens the door for a majority of California voters to adopt future measures designed to gradually reduce or eliminate fundamental rights of vulnerable minorities. Click here to read more http://www.TheCaliforniaFamilyLawBlog.com

Mary Ellen Waller is a family law attorney licensed in California and New York. She is a shareholder of Feinberg & Waller, APC, a firm practicing exclusively in the area of family law with offices in Calabasas and Beverly Hills, California. The Daily Journal, the State of California’s legal newspaper, recently published an article by Waller entitled, “Whatever the Prop.8 Outcome, Some Families Will Be Stuck in Legal Limbo”. An in-depth analysis and report on the Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8 can be found at http://www.TheCaliforniaFamilylawBlog.com

###





















Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.







More The Constitution Press Releases

Posted on July 20, 2011 by , Reply

If the US is all about freedom of religion, why wont courts in Michigan let Mulsim women in court?

Question by 2nd In Command to David: If the US is all about freedom of religion, why wont courts in Michigan let Mulsim women in court?
like they made a law saying, basically, that you have to take off the hijab in court. but if that’s their religion, isn’t that going against the freedom of religion act?

Best answer:

Answer by Dicken C
Because freedom of religion in the US means freedom for christians and jews.

Brutal answers here. The hijab doesn’t cover the face, mouth, etc. It only covers the hair.

You goofs are thinking about the burqa, which the asker didn’t mention.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Posted on July 10, 2011 by , 9 comments

Tea Party Movement Happier With the Supreme Court than Other Branches of Government, Survey Finds

Tea Party Movement Happier With the Supreme Court than Other Branches of Government, Survey Finds











Columbia Law School Professor Nathaniel Persily

New York (Vocus) July 19, 2010

Despite a general distrust of government, most Tea Party supporters believe the Supreme Court will correctly decide difficult issues, even if they are unpopular and go against the will of the president or Congress, a new survey finds.

The survey, co-authored by Nathaniel Persily, the Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law and Political Science at Columbia Law School, also found a majority of Tea Party supporters approve of the Supreme Court’s performance.

The results were taken from an online survey by Knowledge Networks on a wide range of issues that probed attitudes toward constitutional issues, including gun control, abortion rights, and the death penalty.

Some 1,027 people answered questions, including 456 who identified themselves as supporting the Tea Party movement. Harvard University political scientist Stephen Ansolabehere co-wrote the survey with Persily.

Some 80 percent of Tea Party backers either have a great deal or some confidence in the Supreme Court, compared to just 37 percent for Congress and 39 percent for President Obama. Overall, 56 percent approve of the job the Supreme Court is doing, compared to 63 percent of those surveyed who do not support the Tea Party.

On issues before the court, the survey found:


Eighty percent of Tea Party supporters agree the Supreme Court should recognize a right to privacy even if it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution.
Some 48 percent believe the Constitution should be viewed as a general set of principles that can change over time, compared to 74 percent of respondents who do not back the Tea Party.
Asked whether the Supreme Court should focus less on the Constitution’s original intent and more on the effect its decisions will have today, just 38 percent of Tea Party backers support that notion, compared to 69 percent not in the Tea Party.
While 72 percent of those who do not support the Tea Party approve of Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court, just 33 percent of movement supporters back her. Persily said that number was likely held down by President Obama’s low numbers from Tea Party supporters. They gave him just a 26 percent approval rating.

The survey is a follow-up to a similar poll done in 2009. Both have a margin of error of 4 percent.

The full Tea Party survey can be read here. The results from all respondents can be read here.

Columbia Law School, founded in 1858, stands at the forefront of legal education and of the law in a global society. Columbia Law School joins its traditional strengths in international and comparative law, constitutional law, administrative law, business law and human rights law with pioneering work in the areas of intellectual property, digital technology, sexuality and gender, criminal, national security, and environmental law.

Visit us at http://law.columbia.edu

Follow us on Twitter http://www.twitter.com/columbialaw

###






















Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.







Posted on June 23, 2011 by , Reply

Church of Scientology–Final Judgment of European Court of Human Rights Defend Religious Freedom

Church of Scientology–Final Judgment of European Court of Human Rights Defend Religious Freedom











Henderson, NV (Vocus) March 13, 2010

On March 8, 2010, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of religious associations of the Church of Scientology in Surgut and Nizhnekamsk became final.

On October 1, 2009, the European Court of Human Rights delivered the judgment in the cases NN 76836/01 and 32782/03 in favor of the churches of Scientology of Surgut and Nizhnekamsk.

The final judgment of the European Court found a violation of rights of the applicants by the Russian Federation, in particular, violation of the provisions of Article 9 of the Convention (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) in the light of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association).

The court found that “the restricted status afforded to religious groups under the Religions Act did not allow members of such a group to enjoy effectively their right to freedom of religion, rendering such a right illusory and theoretical rather than practical and effective, as required by the Convention.

“The applications for registration as a religious organization submitted by the first and second applicants as founders of their respective groups… were denied by reference to the insufficient period of the groups’ existence. Finally, the restricted status of a religious group for which they qualified and in which the third applicant existed conveyed no practical or effective benefits to them as such a group was deprived of legal personality, property rights and the legal capacity to protect the interests of its members and was also severely hampered in the fundamental aspects of its religious functions.

“In the instant case the Russian Government did not identify any pressing social need which the impugned restriction served or any relevant and sufficient reasons which could justify the lengthy waiting period that a religious organization had to endure prior to obtaining legal personality.”

President of the Church of Scientology of Nizhnekamsk, Mr. Emir Ramazanov, stated, “the judgment of the European Court not only raises the standards of the protection of freedom of conscience and freedom of association to a new level in Russia and in Europe, but also confirms that the European standards guarantee the protection even when injustice comes from national laws.”

The Scientology religion was founded by author and philosopher L. Ron Hubbard. Scientologists believe that Man is an immortal spiritual being and basically good, and that the spiritual potential of Man can be restored (i.e., man can be salvaged) within one lifetime. The first church was opened in the United States in 1954. Now Scientology has over 8,300 Churches, Missions and affiliated groups and millions of members in 165 countries. In Russia there are over 40 churches and Mission of Scientology, from St. Petersburg to Vladivostok.

For more information about Scientology in the Russian Federation, visit http://www.scientology.ru, http://www.scientology-moscow.ru and http://www.scientologyfacts.ru.

# # #









Attachments


















Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.







Posted on May 12, 2011 by , Reply

Atheist Community Denounces Supreme Court Ruling Upholding Use of “Under God” in Pledge of Allegiance

(PRWEB) June 15, 2004

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Atheist Community Denounces Supreme Court Ruling Upholding Use of “Under God” in Pledge of Allegiance

San Diego, CA – June 14, 2004 – The online secular community Secularity.com has denounced today’s ruling by the Supreme Court that retains references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance. “Today’s 8-0 decision was moral cowardice.” said a spokesman for Secularity.com. “The Supreme Court made a political decision to avoid controversy, completely ignoring an unconstitutional favoring of religion.” Many legal experts have stated that, however controversial, “Under God” is a statement that God exists, and thus an endorsement of religion.

Secularity.com, an online community of atheists, agnostics, and humanists, holds the position that in a society based on freedom of religion, no religion should be favored or discriminated against, including the lack of religion – and that including “under God” in a daily oath recited and/or listened to by all schoolchildren is plainly in violation of freedom of religion. They argue that to favor the inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is to favor changing our form of government from a free Democracy to a Theocracy. One member of Secularity.com, who asked to remain anonymous due to religious discrimination, stated “To believe in a God is to believe in a false code of ethics. Faith in a false belief system is the primary cause of war, and the primary cause of our social problems. …forcing millions of schoolchildren to hear or recite “there is a God” every day is indoctrination.”

Secularity.com states that in America, freedom of religion does not apply to those who choose no religion, and the religious majority frequently imposes their beliefs on the secular minority. Secularity.com asserts that those with secular beliefs are more lawful, and have stronger moral base, than the religious. They point to studies showing that while 14% of Americans do not worship a deity, less than half of one percent of the prison population is Atheist. Adam Pedersen, president of Secularity.com, states, “The basis of true morality is secularity.”

Secularity favors the removal of all references to God from all public slogans & assets, include the Pledge of Allegiance, public buildings, and currency.

For additional information, visit Secularity.com: http://www.secularity.com

About Secularity.com

Secularity.com is an online community open to anyone with secular beliefs, including atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, and objectivists. The only requirement for membership in Secularity is a lack of belief in god(s). Secularity.com offers secular event planning, free secular homepages, atheist dating services, discussion forums, newswires, and other resources to the secular community.

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Adam Pedersen

Secularity.com

831-304-3184

http://www.secularity.com

###



More Freedom Of Religion Press Releases

Posted on February 2, 2011 by , Reply

The Family Court Abridges Constitutional Rights and Justice

Because our family courts are not setup to protect the rights of litigants but a so-called ‘higher good’, it’s ripe for distributing injustice and persecution – mostly to fathers and their children. This article explains why.

Thomas Jefferson stated that trial by such a jury is the only anchor yet known to man to hold the state to the principles of the constitution so as not to leave the protection of the individual solely up to the government or judicial elites.

It’s through the jury that ‘the people’ participate in the judicial process and rein in unconstitutional or unreasonable laws and judgments of the state. Without the protection of a jury trial, tyranny will surely reign.

*Our most fundamental rights are in jeopardy in family court for doing no wrong:

At stake are your right to parent your child, to control and choose your income and profession, your right to maintain your professional and driver’s licenses, your right to have or maintain your passport and travel as you see fit. These rights are guaranteed by the constitution.

*What about the ‘best interest of the child’ – isn’t that ‘a greater good’?

Greater goods are part of dictatorships and tyrannies. The greatest goods of republics are peoples’ constitutional rights which includes the protection of ‘due process’. Supreme Court case laws states that the ‘best interest of the child’ resides in a ‘fit’ parent – not the state.

*How are fundamental rights at stake?

Because if the family court judge assigns you to be the noncustodial parent, you lose your parenting rights to your children (i.e. to support them directly, live with them, and direct their lives) and then you’re forced by the court to pay the mother whatever the judge says – amounts that will impoverish most fathers. If you don’t pay regularly and pay it all, you’ll go to jail without a trial.

*What do you have to do wrong to be assigned the noncustodial status?

Nothing! Fit parents – overwhelmingly fathers – have their constitutional rights denied by judges assigning them as noncustodial parents.

The judge – as representative of the state – invokes his ‘illegal’ right to take away constitutional rights of fit fathers for the ‘best interests’ of the children. Best interest determinations are only to be invoked when there are no fit parents.

*The family court setup prevents protection of father’s constitutional rights:

The family court doesn’t allow a trial with a jury. It only permits ‘bench’ trial which means that the judge is both judge and jury for you. So you’re denied the protection of the people from the legal elites and special interest groups that feed off the injustice that the family courts produce.

*Why doesn’t the family court protect a father’s constitutional rights?

Because when you eliminate the natural protections – like a jury – you leave judicial elites in power. More power means a more corruptible system. That’s human nature.

The family court and its affiliates have seized on a ‘greater good’ excuse such as ‘best interest of the children’ and ‘safety of women’ to forego constitutional law and protections for fathers.

*Special interest groups influence on the family court setup and actions:

A host of legal and court-assisting persons and organizations have a strong financial interest in keeping the family court set-up as it is. They together can be called the Divorce and Domestic Violence Industry (the DDVI).

The DDVI is made up of the judges, lawyers, GALs, mothers/women, probation/family service officers, psychiatrists, sociologists, visitation centers, battered women’s shelters, the abuse industry, women’s advocates, the state’s department of revenue (DOR), the federal government’s child support enforcement division…and more! Let’s consider where some of these entities find their financial interest in the family court setup.

The DDVI have interest in:

* Setting larger child support orders.

Both the court and DOR/CSE(child support enforcement (agency)) receive federal incentive payments. Court-DOR (Department of Revenue) agreements send some DOR money to the Court systems. County jails make money by more inmates – who are court-created deadbeat dads.

* Making abuse allegations more easily allowed.

Visitation centers and lawyers benefit by this as well as do Battered Women shelters and Batterers Groups. Incidentally, battering is relatively rare; accusations are very common.

* Aggravating parental exchanges and unequal allotment of rights – as the court imposes.

This makes lots of money and job security for lawyers, family services officers, psychologists, GALS, parenting class coordinators, women’s groups, and affiliated VAWA organizations who receive some Billion over 5 years.

The DDVI, taken together, is a powerful lobby and participant in the rule-making process. They’re not about to favor any change – however fair – that will undermine their positions, benefits, or money and power they’ve accumulated.

Shane Flait gives you the capability you need to fight for your rights.
Get his FREE Downloads at http://www.FathersRightsLegalAid.com
Take his ecourse: How to Handle Your Family Court Case at http://www.FathersRightsLegalAid.com

Article from articlesbase.com

Posted on January 17, 2011 by , Reply

Supreme Court Rules RLUIPA Does Not Violate the Establishment Clause: Church-State Experts React to Unanimous High Court Ruling

(PRWEB) June 1, 2005

The Supreme Court yesterday upheld the constitutionality of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal law that aims to protect the religious freedom of inmates and others held in state and local institutions. The unanimous decision in Cutter v. Wilkinson reverses a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had held that the 2000 statute unconstitutionally advances religion by giving religious prisoners greater rights than their secular counterparts.

Religious freedom advocates hailed the decision, saying it would have a far-reaching, positive impact. “Cutter is a win for religious exercise in prison, but more importantly, it is a thumping victory for religion-only accommodations nationwide,” said Anthony Picarello, president and general counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Furthermore, Picarello said, the decision confirmed a recent High Court trend toward more religious accommodation. “There’s a strong argument to be made that the anti-accommodation reading of the Establishment Clause has been dead for a long time, but this unanimous decision removes any lingering doubt.”

RLUIPA opponents said that the decision was too open-ended and that it could lead to great disparities in the way the government treats those who are religious and those who are not. “The court fails to provide a theory of when it is impermissible for the state to treat religion better than the secular,” said Richard Schragger, an associate professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. “It has thus invited Congress to adopt legislation in areas far beyond prison administration that will treat religiously motivated persons more favorably than others.”

On March 17, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life hosted a discussion on the merits of the RLUIPA case, featuring Professor Schragger; Nathan J. Diament, director of the Institute for Public Affairs at the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America; and Ira “Chip” Lupu, F. Elwood and Eleanor Davis Professor of Law at The George Washington University Law School. The full transcript of the discussion is available at http://www.pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=70 .

In February, the Forum published an in-depth backgrounder on the case, which provides legal and historical analysis of the issues in Cutter. An addendum to the backgrounder, analyzing Justice Ginsburg’s decision and its possible impact on future cases, will soon be available on the Forum’s Web site, http://www.pewforum.org.

RLUIPA allows a state or locality to limit an inmate’s religious freedom only if it can show that the restriction advances a compelling government interest, such as maintaining prison security. The statute imposes the same standard on zoning laws and other land-use regulations that negatively impact churches and other houses of worship, but that section of the law was not at issue in the case.

The case began when a number of Ohio prisoners who are members of the Satanist religion and other unconventional sects sued the state, alleging that prison officials had not adequately accommodated their religious needs and had therefore violated RLUIPA. Ohio argued that because RLUIPA mandates religious accommodation, it is a “law respecting an establishment of religion” and therefore prohibited by the First Amendment.

Writing for the entire court, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg rejected Ohio’s contention, arguing that the law “confers no privileged status on any particular religious sect .…” She compared RLUIPA with other constitutionally acceptable accommodations for religion, noting, for example, that a prison is constitutionally free to allow prisoners to assemble for worship even if the prison forbids inmates from holding political rallies.

“In the past, the court has said there is a zone between the government’s obligation to guarantee the free exercise of religion and its obligation not to establish religion, and that within that zone, it can legislate religious accommodation,” said David Masci, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum. “In Cutter, Justice Ginsberg has said that RLUIPA fits comfortably into that zone.”

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life delivers timely, impartial information to national opinion leaders on issues at the intersection of religion and public affairs; it also serves as a neutral venue for discussions of those matters. The Forum is a project of the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan “fact tank” that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world.





More Freedom Of Religion Press Releases

Posted on January 12, 2011 by , Reply

Ohio high court says diversion of tobacco funds OK

Ohio high court says diversion of tobacco funds OK
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Wednesday that lawmakers didn’t violate the state Constitution when they took about $ 230 million set aside for tobacco prevention and used it for other purposes.
Read more on AP via Yahoo! Finance

Poll Americans see country as exceptional
PRINCETON, N.J., Dec. 22 (UPI) — Americans widely agree the United States is exceptional, set apart from the rest of the world because of its history and Constitution, Gallup said Wednesday.
Read more on UPI

Posted on December 22, 2010 by , Reply
12 » Last