Opinion ID: 76812
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: RLUIPA Has a Secular Purpose.

Text: 46 The first part of the Lemon inquiry is whether the law in question has a secular purpose. The Supreme Court has explained that a secular purpose need not be hostile or even unrelated to religion: 47 This does not mean that the law's purpose must be unrelated to religion — that would amount to a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups, and the Establishment Clause has never been so interpreted. Rather, Lemon 's purpose requirement aims at preventing the relevant government decisionmaker — in this case, Congress — from abandoning neutrality and acting with the intent of promoting a particular point of view in religious matters. 48 Corp. of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 335, 107 S.Ct. 2862, 2868, 97 L.Ed.2d 273 (1987) (internal citations omitted). In Amos, the Court, for example, upheld section 702 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which exempts religious organizations from the prohibitions of discrimination in employment on the basis of religion. The Court held that it was a permissible legislative purpose to alleviate significant governmental interference with the ability of religious organizations to define and carry out their mission. Id. 49 Like section 702 of the Civil Rights Act, RLUIPA advances the secular purpose of protecting the free exercise of religion from unnecessary government interference. 146 Cong. Rec. E1234, E1235 (daily ed. July 14, 2000) (statement of Rep. Canady); see also Madison, 355 F.3d at 317; Mayweathers, 314 F.3d at 1068. This Court has held that where, as [in the case of section 2 of RLUIPA], a law's purpose is to alleviate significant interference with the exercise of religion, that purpose does not violate the Establishment Clause. Midrash, 366 F.3d at 1241. As discussed above in Part III.A.2, rehabilitation of prisoners is also a secular purpose underlying RLUIPA. Although the Sixth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in Cutter, it did not discuss rehabilitation as a purpose for RLUIPA. 349 F.3d at 263-64. In any event, our conclusion in Midrash is binding; RLUIPA has a permissible secular purpose. 50