In an amicus brief filed with the 7th Circuit in the case of Willis v Commissioner, Indiana Department of Corrections, the Baptist Joint Committee joined the Christian Legal Society, Prison Fellowship and the National Association of Evangelicals in urging the court to reject an argument of the state that would severely undermine the religious liberty protections in RLUIPA.
At issue is the provision in the law requiring the government to demonstrate a "compelling interest" if placing a burden on the religious exercise of prisoners (a high hurdle, known in the legal world as "strict scrutiny"). Indiana's prison officials argue that avoiding any increase in cost, in itself, amounts to a compelling state interest, thus excusing them from any accommodation that would require an expenditure. The amicus brief filed by the BJC and others takes great issue with this argument.
Appellants claim that the state’s desire to avoid expenditures is per se a compelling government interest for purposes of a strict scrutiny analysis. That position is contrary to established precedent. Instead, the Supreme Court has consistently and explicitly refused to recognize the desire to avoid expenditures as itself a “compelling governmental interest."
…
The logic behind this strong rule is clear: almost every government action costs money; almost any freedom-numbing rule of uniformity can “save money”. If strict scrutiny is to retain any meaning—and the rights it protects retain any vitality—state actors must offer more than “slippery slope concerns that could be invoked in response to any . . . claim”. If simply saving money or avoiding costs were recognized as a compelling interest, one half of the strict scrutiny test would be neutered.
Safety and security are of course compelling governmental interests, but states should can and should demonstrate that a religious accommodation will cause a decrease in security meet that burden. Here, the state tries – as the brief describes – "to leap this gap and make money equivalent to a recognized compelling interest—prison security…" The court should reject this leap.
