RLUIPA was passed by Congress with bipartisan support in 2000. In 1990, the Supreme Court changed the standard by which free exercise of religion cases were judged. Until 1990, those claims were judged under a "strict scrutiny" standard which required the government to demonstrate a compelling interest for any burden on religious exercise and to demonstrate that the burden was the least restrictive means to pursue the compelling interest. Most laws that were subjected to strict scrutiny were held unconstitutional. RLUIPA restored strict scrutiny for houses of worship in religious land use cases and religious exercise of prisoners. Today's unanimous decision, known as Cutter v. Wilkinson, was authored by Justice Ginsburg.

Liberty Counsel signed on to a Supreme Court amicus brief as part of the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion, which is a coalition consisting of a wide array of organizations that frequently disagree on the interpretation of the Establishment Clause but agreed in this case on RLUIPA and free exercise of religion.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled RLUIPA unconstitutional under the Lemon test. However, the High Court found that RLUIPA did not violate the Establishment Clause without using the Lemon test. This aspect of the case is significant in light of Liberty Counsel's Ten Commandments case of McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, which asked the Court to overrule the Lemon test and to establish a new test for Establishment Clause cases. The Court may be poised to overrule or modify the Lemon test. A decision on McCreary is expected by the end of June

Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, stated, "The Court's decision today is good news for the free exercise of religion. This is a good day for houses of worship and institutionalized persons. Religious free exercise has been restored and set on solid ground." Staver concluded, "RLUIPA is beyond any question a powerful weapon to be used, not only by prisoners, but also by houses of worship faced with zoning laws that restrict religious freedom."