O'lone v. Estate of Shabazz

The second policy prohibited inmates in that class to return to those buildings during the day. The Federal District Court ruled that no constitutional violation was present. s in which they were housed and in which the services took place. The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded however, stating that the policies could only be sustained if the State showed the challenged policies were intended for security purposes, and “that no reasonable method exists by which prisoners’ religious rights can be accommodated without creating bona fide security problems. (5-4)

Holding: (1) The prison regulations did not violate the free exercise of religion clause.

(2) The prison officials did not have the burden of proving that no reasonable alternative

method existed by which the inmates religious rights could be accommodated without

creating bona fide security problems. ”

Legal Question: Should a prisoner’s religious rights take priority over prison policies made to ensure security?

Decision: The decision of the United States Court of Appeals was reversed. 266, 285 (1984), it was ruled that “lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system.

Reasoning: (Rehnquist)

The court must resolve the present issue by determining whether a prisoner’s religious rights takes precedence over prison policies made to ensure security.