Printer Friendly
The Free Library
14,503,743 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

Henderson v. Berge.


U.S. District Court

RELIGION

Henderson v. Berge, 362 F.Supp.2d 1030 (W.D.Wis. 2005). A state prison inmate INMATE. One who dwells in a part of another's house, the latter dwelling, at the same time, in the said house. Kitch. 45, b; Com. Dig. Justices of the Peace, B 85; 1 B. & Cr. 578; 8 E. C. L. R. 153; 2 Dowl. & Ry. 743; 8 B. & Cr. 71; 15 E. C. L. R. 154; 2 Man. & Ry. 227; 9 B. & Cr.  brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials for the alleged violation of his rights under the First Amendment Establish Clause and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, Pub.L. 106-274, 42 U.S.C.  2000cc-1 et seq. (RLUIPA) is a United States federal law that prohibits the imposition of burdens on the ability of prisoners to worship as they please, as well as making it easier  (RLUIPA RLUIPA Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ). The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The court held that the prison's practice of making religious programming available over closed-circuit television closed-circuit television
Noun

a television system used within a limited area such as a building

Noun 1. closed-circuit television
 to inmates' cells did not violate the Establishment Clause. The court found that the religious broadcasts had a secular purpose of accommodating and protecting inmates' free exercise of religion within the prison's economic and security constraints. According to according to
prep.
1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.

2. In keeping with: according to instructions.

3.
 the court, providing only one satellite channel with religious programming did not have the effect of advancing one religion over another, in that the inmates had a choice among several religious programs, as well as the choice of not watching any religious program. (Wisconsin Secure Program Facility, Wisconsin)
COPYRIGHT 2005 CRS, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2005, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:FREE SPEECH, EXPRESSION, AND ASSOCIATION
Publication:Corrections Caselaw Quarterly
Article Type:Brief Article
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Aug 1, 2005
Words:162
Previous Article:Gilmore v. County of Douglas, State of Neb.(FREE SPEECH, EXPRESSION, AND ASSOCIATION)(Brief Article)
Next Article:Lindell v. Casperson.(FREE SPEECH, EXPRESSION, AND ASSOCIATION)(Brief Article)
Topics:



Related Articles
At Jefferson's university: freedom from, not of, religion? (Supreme Court to hear Rosenberger vs. University of Virginia case)(Column)
NY conference and association name change usher in new e-era for newsletter publishers.
GOD TALK.(tensions between freedom of speech and separation of church and state)
Free speech, expression, and association.(prisoner litigation)(Brief Article)
Free speech, expression, and association.(Brief Article)
Federal court foils Arkansas school's effort to restrict Harry Potter. (People & Events).
Free speech, expression, association.
Henderson v. Berge.(EXERCISE AND RECREATION)(Brief Article)
Henderson v. Berge.(RELIGION)(violation of First Amendment Establish Clause and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act)(Brief...

Terms of use | Copyright © 2009 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles