Ramirez v. Collier
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Ramirez v. Collier and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Ramirez v. Collier.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of John Ramirez, finding that Texas\'s restrictions on religious touch and audible prayer during executions likely violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The Court determined that these restrictions are not the least restrictive means of furthering the State\'s compelling interests. The decision emphasizes the need for accommodations of religious practices in the execution chamber.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Ramirez v. Collier.
The Court held that Ramirez is likely to succeed on his RLUIPA claims because Texas's restrictions burden religious exercise and are not the least restrictive means of furthering the State's interests.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Ramirez v. Collier. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Free Exercise of Religion is relevant to Ramirez v. Collier
The case primarily involves the application of RLUIPA, which is designed to protect the free exercise of religion for institutionalized persons.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Ramirez alleged that the refusal of prison offcials to allow his pastor to lay hands on him in the execution chamber violated his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) and the First Amendment.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Ramirez v. Collier
The Court discusses whether Ramirez properly exhausted administrative remedies, which is a procedural due process consideration.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Court rejects the prison offcials' threshold contention that Ramirez cannot succeed on his claims because he failed to exhaust all available remedies before fling suit as mandated by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
-
Why Remedies and Relief is relevant to Ramirez v. Collier
The Court's decision involves the issuance of a preliminary injunction, which is a form of equitable relief.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Held: Ramirez is likely to succeed on his RLUIPA claims because Texas's restrictions on religious touch and audible prayer in the execution chamber burden religious exercise and are not the least restrictive means of furthering the State's compelling interests.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Ramirez v. Collier that support the summary and concepts above.
Ramirez is likely to succeed on his RLUIPA claims because Texas's restrictions on religious touch and audible prayer in the execution chamber burden religious exercise.
The Court concludes the balance of equities and the public interest favor his tailored request for injunctive relief.
RLUIPA requires that courts consider only 'the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is being substantially burdened.'
