Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-6827_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 6

Cite as:  574 U. S. ____ (2015) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

burden  a  person’s  exercise  of  religion  even  if  the  burden 
results  from  a  rule  of  general  applicability,”  unless  the 
government  “demonstrates  that  application  of  the  burden
to  the  person––(1) is  in  furtherance  of  a  compelling  gov-
ernmental  interest;  and  (2) is  the  least  restrictive  means
of  furthering  that  compelling  governmental  interest.”  42 
U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b).  In making RFRA applicable to 
the  States  and  their  subdivisions,  Congress  relied  on 
Section  5  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  but  in  City  of 
Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507 (1997), this Court held that
RFRA  exceeded  Congress’  powers  under  that  provision. 
Id., at 532–536. 

Congress  responded  to  City  of  Boerne  by  enacting
RLUIPA,  which  applies  to  the  States  and  their  subdivi-
sions  and  invokes  congressional  authority  under  the
Spending  and  Commerce  Clauses.  See  §2000cc–1(b).
RLUIPA  concerns  two  areas  of  government  activity:  Sec-
tion  2  governs  land-use  regulation,  §2000cc;  and  Section 
3—the  provision  at  issue  in  this  case—governs  religious
exercise by institutionalized persons, §2000cc–1.  Section 3 
mirrors  RFRA  and  provides  that  “[n]o  government  shall
impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a
person residing in or confined to an institution . . . even if 
the  burden  results  from  a  rule  of  general  applicability,
unless  the  government  demonstrates  that  imposition  of 
the  burden  on  that  person––(1) is  in  furtherance  of  a 
compelling  governmental  interest;  and  (2)  is  the  least 
restrictive  means  of  furthering  that  compelling  govern-
  RLUIPA  thus  allows 
mental  interest.” 
prisoners  “to  seek  religious  accommodations  pursuant  to
the  same  standard  as  set  forth  in  RFRA.”  Gonzales  v.  O 
Centro  Espírita  Beneficente  União  do  Vegetal,  546  U. S. 
418, 436 (2006).

§2000cc–1(a).

Several  provisions  of  RLUIPA  underscore  its  expansive
protection  for  religious  liberty.    Congress  defined  “reli-
gious  exercise”  capaciously  to  include  “any  exercise  of