P
pnewton
Guest
Here is a case where Church of Christ was restricted from services and the decision upheld.
ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/924/924.F2d.182.90-3216.html

ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/924/924.F2d.182.90-3216.html
The standard is clear. “[W]hen a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”
Note: I am not a lawyer.We, therefore, agree with the district court that the restriction on Clifton’s constitutional right to practice his religion is a reasonable one. While “convicted prisoners do not forfeit all constitutional protections by reason of their conviction and confinement in prison,” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 545, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1877, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979), neither do they maintain their rights to the same degree as other citizens. “Lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system.” Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 285, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 1060, 92 L.Ed. 1356 (1948).
12 Thus, because valid penological interests justify the restrictions imposed on Clifton as a member of the Church of Christ at Leavenworth and because Clifton’s other grounds for appeal are without merit, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.