Cutter v. Wilkinson
E43462
Cutter v. Wilkinson is a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act as applied to the religious rights of prison inmates.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Cutter v. Wilkinson canonical | 5 |
| Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T336213 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Cutter v. Wilkinson Context triple: [Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, relatedToCaseLaw, Cutter v. Wilkinson]
-
A.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
B.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
C.
Milliken v. Bradley
Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
-
D.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
E.
City of Boerne v. Flores
City of Boerne v. Flores is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court case that curtailed Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment and held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not be applied to the states.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Cutter v. Wilkinson Target entity description: Cutter v. Wilkinson is a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act as applied to the religious rights of prison inmates.
-
A.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
B.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
C.
Milliken v. Bradley
Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
-
D.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
E.
City of Boerne v. Flores
City of Boerne v. Flores is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court case that curtailed Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment and held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not be applied to the states.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (48)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
prisoners' rights case ⓘ religious liberty case ⓘ |
| appliesTo | state and local institutions receiving federal funds ⓘ |
| aroseInJurisdiction |
State of Ohio
ⓘ
linked to:
Ohio
|
| clarifies | that neutral accommodation of religion can be consistent with the Establishment Clause ⓘ |
| concernsAbbreviation | RLUIPA ⓘ |
| concernsGroup |
institutionalized persons
ⓘ
state prison inmates ⓘ |
| concernsStatute | Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ⓘ |
| concernsTopic |
Establishment Clause
ⓘ
First Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ accommodation of religion ⓘ free exercise of religion ⓘ religious rights of prison inmates ⓘ |
| decisionType | unanimous decision ⓘ |
| hasChiefJusticeAtDecision | William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| hasCitation | 544 U.S. 709 ⓘ |
| hasCountry |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| hasCourt | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| hasDecisionDate | May 31, 2005 ⓘ |
| hasDocketNumber | 03-9877 ⓘ |
| hasJusticeOnCourt |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
Antonin Scalia ⓘ Clarence Thomas ⓘ David H. Souter ⓘ John Paul Stevens ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Sandra Day O'Connor ⓘ
linked to:
Sandra Day O’Connor
Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| hasMajorityOpinionBy | Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ |
| hasPetitioner | Cutter ⓘ |
| hasRespondent |
Reginald A. Wilkinson, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
ⓘ
Wilkinson ⓘ |
| holding |
Government may accommodate religious practices of prisoners without running afoul of the Establishment Clause, so long as it does not elevate accommodation over other significant interests
ⓘ
RLUIPA, as applied to institutionalized persons, does not on its face violate the Establishment Clause ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
scope of permissible religious accommodation in prisons
ⓘ
whether RLUIPA violates the Establishment Clause by impermissibly advancing religion ⓘ |
| lowerCourt | United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ⓘ |
| proceduralPosture | review of a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ⓘ |
| relatedAreaOfLaw |
civil rights law
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ prison law ⓘ |
| relatedTo | Religious Freedom Restoration Act ⓘ |
| result | judgment of the Sixth Circuit reversed ⓘ |
| yearArgued | 2005 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 2005 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Cutter v. Wilkinson Description of subject: Cutter v. Wilkinson is a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act as applied to the religious rights of prison inmates.
Referenced by (6)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
linked to: Cutter v. Wilkinson