The United States Supreme Court upheld the rights of prisoners to have their reasonable religious needs met by federal authorities. The decision, released on Tuesday, was unanimous.

Ohio had challenged the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act which was enacted by Congress in 2000. RLUIPA said that 'no government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution' that receives federal funds, unless the burden is absolutely necessary to meet a 'compelling' government purpose.

Ohio said that the law favored religion and was used by prisoners to get privileges like better food that other inmates do not have access to.

According to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the law had to be upheld because Ohio's interpretation was much too broad. Ginsburg said that under the state's interpretation, the law that permits Jewish members of the armed forces to wear yarmulkes on duty would also have to be made unconstitutional, for example.

'[W]e find RLUIPA's institutionalized-persons provision compatible with the [Constitution] because it alleviates exceptional government-created burdens on private religious exercise,' Ginsburg wrote.

There were limits placed on the need to accommodate religious needs, however. 'We do not read RLUIPA to elevate accommodation of religious observances over an institution's need to maintain order and safety,' Ginsburg stated.

That means that states can challenge the law on a case-by-case basis to determine what situations threaten the institution's safety and ability to maintain order. Another challenge to the law is almost certain to come before the court in the future based on this ruling. However, the overall principle of maintaining prisoners' religious rights has been upheld.