Citation

Jr RA. J. Crim. Justice 1998; 26(5): 385-398.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1998, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/S0047-2352(98)00018-X

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In 1990, religious groups and their supporters were alarmed by a U.S. Supreme Court decision that appeared to curtail religious freedom by lowering the applicable standard in deciding religious cases. These groups convinced Congress to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which also included prison religious cases. Corrections officials had unsuccessfully lobbied Congress to not include prisons within RFRA's coverage, declaring that it would have a deleterious effect on prison management. In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to accept a case involving a dispute between the San Antonio city government and a Catholic church where RFRA was the issue. Correction officials and state attorney generals seized upon this case to urge the Court to disentangle prisons from RFRA, citing RFRA's disastrous effect on prison security. The Court has subsequently held RFRA to be unconstitutional. Supporters of RFRA, however, have promised to write a new statute or seek a constitutional amendment to reestablish the principles of RFRA. RFRA may be resurrected, so relevant legal cases have been reviewed to examine the effect on prison management. The conclusion is that RFRA has had little or no effect on prison security or management.