RLUIPA, Distress, and Damages

Abstract

Do prisoners have a right without a remedy? 3 The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 4 (RLUIPA or “the Act”) provides that “[n]o government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person” confined in a prison. 5 The Act further provides that a prisoner bringing a cause of action under RLUIPA may “obtain appropriate relief.” 6 But the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 7 (PLRA) bars claims for damages for mental and emotional distress without physical injury. Because violations of the right to freely exercise one’s religion seldom cause physical injury, it is not clear whether or when prisoners suing under RLUIPA may recover compensatory damages when their statutory rights are violated. This Comment examines the apparent conflict between RLUIPA and PLRA. The issue addressed here is the result of three developments. First, in 1990 the Supreme Court decided Employment Division v Smith, 8 which made it more difficult for individuals (including prisoners) to establish a violation of First Amendment rights in the particu-