Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-6827_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 21

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

1 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 13–6827 
_________________ 

GREGORY HOUSTON HOLT, AKA ABDUL MAALIK
 
MUHAMMAD, PETITIONER v. RAY HOBBS,  

DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTION, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
 

[January 20, 2015]

 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, concurring. 
I  concur  in  the  Court’s  opinion,  which  holds  that  the
Department  failed  to  show  why  the  less  restrictive  al-
ternatives  identified  by  petitioner  in  the  course  of  this
litigation  were  inadequate  to  achieve  the  Department’s
compelling  security-related  interests.    I  write  separately 
to  explain  my  understanding  of  the  applicable  legal
standard. 

Nothing  in  the  Court’s  opinion  calls  into  question  our
prior  holding  in  Cutter  v.  Wilkinson  that  “[c]ontext  mat-
ters”  in  the  application  of  the  Religious  Land  Use  and 
Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 114 Stat.
803, 42 U. S. C. §2000cc et seq.  544 U. S. 709, 723 (2005) 
(internal  quotation  marks  omitted).    In  the  dangerous 
prison  environment,  “regulations  and  procedures”  are 
needed  to  “maintain  good  order,  security  and  discipline, 
consistent  with  consideration  of  costs  and  limited  re-
sources.”  Ibid.  Of course, that is not to say that cost alone 
is  an  absolute  defense  to  an  otherwise  meritorious 
RLUIPA  claim.    See  §2000cc–3(c).    Thus,  we  recognized
“that  prison  security  is  a  compelling  state  interest,  and 
that deference is due to institutional officials’ expertise in
this area.”  Cutter, 544 U. S., at 725, n. 13.