This legal memorandum analyzes the constitutional (First and Fourteenth Amendment) issues involved with the hypothetical
case involving Bob Smith and Hoot Hopper under the facts stated.
Neither inmate has a valid claim for denial of his right to
exercise freely his religion. Smith cannot sustain a claim that
he has been punished for his utterances. Many of the state
prison's actions are constitutional. The inmates' First and
Fourteenth amendment rights of access to the courts appear to
have been violated and procedural due process has been denied.
Although the First Amendment provides that Congress shall
not interfere with one's exercise of religion or abridge one's
free speech, the First Amendment is applicable to the states
through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.1
State action can take the form of the disciplinary and other
official actions of the state prison, as in this case.
What First Amendment Rights of Inmates Are Protectible?
The threshold question in this case is whether the
whether the "religion" proposed by Smith and Hopper is a religion
protected by the First Amendment. The answer is that it is not.
Under the recent Church of Scientology2 and prior case law, the
courts must determine whether the beliefs involved are sincerely
held, address fundamental issues, are comprehensive and involve
1Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) (fre