A. Since its establishment in 1981, Aleph has litigated, lobbied, negotiated and mediated on behalf of Jewish men and women nationwide in institutional environments in countless religious discrimination cases at every federal and state court and agency level.

B. Aleph largely has been responsible for the tremendous strides achieved by institutionalized Jewry in key areas affecting Jewish life, such as: (i) kashruth (kosher food laws); (ii) Sabbath and holiday observances (e.g., Sabbath work proscriptions, Chanukah candles; Passover restrictions); and (iii) access to religious books and ritual materials; to name but a few. 

A. Prison officials increasingly place restrictions on minority religious practices, and are generally insensitive to discrimination against such a small, and often docile, percentage of their population.

B. There is a palpable feeling that the incoming national administration will not be aggressive in pursuing Jewish religious discrimination issues.

C. Aleph does not presently have the full-time professional staff or funding necessary to direct the resources that the Jewish community needs and deserves.

3. There are Very Good Reasons to Establish the JCLU

A. JCLU is needed to fight religious discrimination that is still pervasive in institutional environments, as has been highlighted and evidenced by recent testimony before Congress and in law review articles. See, e.g., Prisoner Claims for Religious Freedom, 32 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 573 (1999); How the Grinch Stole Chanukah, 21 Cardozo L. Rev. 707 (1999).

B. Lawsuits brought by pro se litigants often result in bad court decisions on meritorious claims, creating bad precedent for future litigation.

C. The Jewish community needs to cultivate a new generation of attorneys to continue what earlier generations of civil rights lawyers began, and to combat new challenges. As an organization dedicated to lawyers and other professionals, JCLU can organize the Jewish bar, marshal the legal talents of Jewish practitioners, law professors and students and mobilize them on behalf of the community in a manner that other more-broadly-based organizations cannot.

D. While other Jewish organizations address religious discrimination issues, none are frequently involved in cases involving the American prison system, nor do they have the specialized expertise or resources necessary to address these issues in a systematic way. Indeed, most Jewish organizations, religious and secular, now refer any prison issue cases to Aleph. Aleph's JCLU can serve as a unifying umbrella organization to more effectively, efficiently and consistently represent and protect the legal interests of Jewish men and women in institutional environments.

E. If lead by a director/lawyer dedicated to the task, JCLU -- unlike other Jewish religious or advocacy organizations -- can more readily find precedent-setting cases important to our community, and find lawyers to represent parties and issues on pro bono and contingent fee bases.

F. JCLU can also take a leading role in educating the lay population in the area of business and legal ethics, given the unfortunate spate of apparent illegal behavior in our community.

4. We Have the Ammunition - We Need the Guns

A. Federal legislation was recently enacted that will help protect the religious rights of Jews in institutional environments. After passing both Houses of Congress unanimously, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, was signed into law by President Clinton on September 22, 2000. Aleph's testimony before Congress was expressly noted by Senator Orrin Hatch when the legislation was presented to the President for his signature.

B. RLUIPA expressly provides that "[n]o government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution . . . even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person - (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." The standard applied is identical to the one applied under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which, before RFRA was invalidated by the US Supreme Court on now-inapplicable grounds, was extremely successful in protecting the religious freedom of Jewish men and women across the country. Moreover, a number of states have enacted state statutes that provide essentially similar protections as RLUIPA.

C. RLUIPA expressly provides for attorneys fees to be paid to successful plaintiffs under the Act.