Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a477_1bo2.pdf
Page Number: 13

10 

AUSTIN v. U. S. NAVY SEALS 1–26 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act 
of  2000,  14  Stat.  803,  42  U. S. C.  §2000cc  et  seq.,  which, 
among other things, essentially requires prisons to comply
with the RFRA standard.  Ramirez argued that his exercise 
of religion will be burdened unless Texas allows his pastor 
to lay hands on him and pray aloud while he is being exe-
cuted.  Ramirez was less than punctilious and consistent in 
requesting  a  religious  accommodation,  see  Ramirez,  595 
U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 4–5); id., at ___ (THOMAS, J., 
dissenting) (slip op., at 8), but the Court’s decision forgave
all that.  Texas objected to Ramirez’s request on the ground
that  the  pastor’s  conduct  might  interfere  with  the  execu-
tion, but the Court held that the State failed to discharge 
its burden to substantiate the likelihood of such harm.  Id., 
at ___ (slip op., at 12). 

The contrast between our decision in Ramirez yesterday
and the Court’s treatment of respondents today is striking.
We  properly  went  to  some  lengths  to  protect  Ramirez’s
rights because that is what the law demands.  We should 
do no less for respondents.