Spending Power Legislation Upheld

The Ninth Circuit has upheld the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.

The Ninth Circuit has found constitutional the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc (RLUIPA), which prohibits governments from imposing a substantial burden on religious practices of prisoners unless there is a compelling state interest and the least restrictive means of advancing that interest are employed. Mayweathers v. Newland, 2002 WL 31875409 (9th Cir. Dec. 27, 2002). The District Court issued an injunction against state prison officials barring punishment for Moslem prisoners attending Friday afternoon services. The United States intervened on the side of the plaintiffs.

The state moved to dismiss, arguing the statute exceeded Congressional authority under the Spending Clause, the Commerce Clause, and the 14th Amendment. It also alleged the statute violated the Establishment Clause, the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments and the separation of powers. The Court upheld the statute under Spending Clause power. In footnote 2, the decision states that having reached a decision under the Spending Clause, it was unnecessary to address the Commerce Clause, pointedly omitting any reference to the 14th Amendment, possibly because the decision in City of Boerne v. Flowers, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), raised serious questions as to constitutionality.

The court applied a four part test to challenges to Spending Power legislation:

(1) The statute must be in pursuit of the general welfare. The Supreme Court has made clear in South Dakota v. Dole 483 U.S. 203 (1987), that courts should defer substantially to Congress in determining if a statute advances the general welfare. "In fact, the [Supreme] Court seems doubtful that failure to advance the general welfare could ever provide adequate grounds for invalidating a federal statute."

(2) Conditions on federal grants must be unambiguous, clearly communicating to states th consequences of their participation in the federally funded scheme. The language of (RLUIPA) is unequivocal.

(3) "The Supreme Court has suggested that federal grants conditioned on compliance with federal directives might [sic] be illegitimate if the conditions share no relationship to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs." This possible ground "is a far cry from imposing an exacting standard for relatedness. The Court has stated more recently that'[s]uch conditions must . . . bear some relationship to the purpose of the federal spending'." The condition in RLUIPA meets that test. Congress has a strong interest in seeing to it that use of federal funds does not infringe religious liberty.

(4) Independent constitutional proscriptions may also provide a basis for striking Spending Clause legislation. The court then analyzes Establishment Clause tests and finds no violation. It also finds no restriction imposed by the Tenth Amendment, and that relief is available under Ex parte Young. Separation of powers is not breached. The statute does not purport to determine what constitutional protection is due religion, but rather imposes additional protection for religious liberty. The First Amendment imposes only a floor, not a ceiling, on religious liberty.