Cruz v. Beto
- Decided
- March 20, 1972
- Docket
- 71-5552
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,756 timesAbrogated on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: abrogated on other grounds (not yet verified) · Peltier v. Mr. McTighe
What later courts said
- holding that a prison could not deny a Buddhist inmate a reasonable opportunity to pursue his faith comparable to that afforded adherents of other religions — Williams v. Lara (2001)
- holding that every prisoner is entitled to “a reasonable opportunity of pursuing his faith comparable to the opportunity afforded fellow prisoners” — Abdul-Akbar v. Department of Corrections (1995)
- concluding that "reasonable opportunities must be afforded to all prisoners to exercise the religious freedom guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendment without fear of penalty" — Hbrandon Lee Flagner v. Reginald Wilkinson (2001)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Per Curiam.
The complaint, alleging a cause of action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, states that Cruz is a Buddhist, who is in a Texas prison. While prisoners who are members of other religious sects are allowed to use the prison chapel, Cruz is not. He shared his Buddhist religious material with other prisoners and, according to the allegations, in retaliation was placed in solitary confinement on a diet of bread and water for two weeks, without access to newspapers, magazines, or other sources of news. He also alleged that he was prohibited from corresponding with his religious advisor in the Buddhist sect. Those in the isolation unit spend 22 hours a day in total idleness.
Again, according to the allegations, Texas encourages inmates to participate in other religious programs, providing at state expense chaplains of the Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant faiths; providing also at state expense copies of the Jewish and Christian Bibles, and conducting [*320] weekly Sunday school classes and religious services. According to the allegations, points of good merit are given prisoners as a reward for attending orthodox religious services, those points enhancing a prisoner’s eligibility for desirable job assignments and early parole consideration.[1] Respondent answered, denying the allegations and moving to dismiss.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.