WASHINGTON – Prisoners in state custody are entitled to broad federal protections for religious practice in prison, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday in a unanimous decision that upheld a five-year-old law on religious liberties.

The ruling was a victory for a group of Ohio prisoners who practice several unusual faiths – including Wicca, Satanism, and a brand of Christianity tied to white supremacy – and sued for the freedom to practice group rituals, wear medallions, and keep religious books and other items in their cells.

State prison officials forbade the activities, alleging that the practices were covers for gang activities, and attempted to have declared unconstitutional a federal law that requires authorities to show a compelling reason for restricting religious practice.

But the court ruled that the accommodation of religious practices in governmental institutions does not violate the Constitution’s prohibition against the establishment of religion.

The prisoners sued under a 2000 federal law, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which Ohio attempted to have declared unconstitutional. A federal district court sided with the prisoners, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit found that the law violated the Establishment Clause.

The court yesterday reversed the appellate decision and upheld the law – which prohibits the government from imposing “substantial burden” on religious exercise in institutions – unless it furthers a “compelling government interest” by the “least restrictive means.”

The law “does not, on its face, exceed the limits of permissible government accommodation of religious practice,” wrote Justice Ginsburg for a unanimous court. It does not create special rights for religious prisoners, but rather, “alleviates exceptional government-created burdens on religious exercise,” Justice Ginsburg wrote.

The justices ruled only on the constitutionality of the religion land use law and did not decide whether the individual prisoners should be granted all their demands. The court remanded that decision back to the district court. The case, known as Cutter v. Wilkinson, could directly affect some 60 prisoners.

Justice Ginsburg noted that religious accommodation does not rise above an institution’s “need to maintain order and safety,” and said the court expects the law to be applied “with particular sensitivity to security concerns.”

The state solicitor of Ohio, Douglas Cole, said he is disappointed by the decision but encouraged by the opinion’s recognition “that these requests can raise safety concerns and that federal courts should defer to prison administrators in how to strike the appropriate balances between safety and accommodation.”

Ohio will continue to litigate the individual cases, he said, and also raise constitutional challenges to the law that the top court did not address in its ruling: arguments that the law is beyond Congress’s power under the Spending Clause and the Commerce Clause.

“The justices expressly said they were not reaching them. That leaves them open,” said Mr. Cole.

An attorney for the prisoners, Elizabeth Cooke, said the opinion strengthens the prisoners’ hand in either negotiating an agreement with authorities or continuing the battle in court.

‘It’s a positive statement about religion in institutions. Our position is that religious exercises, whether mainstream or not, are beneficial in a prison environment,” she said.

The additional burden on authorities to give compelling reasons for restricting religious practice will help ensure that worshippers of minority religions are given the same treatment as those of more mainstream religions, added Ms. Cooke, an associate clinical professor of law at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University.

Had the court struck down the law, institutions around the country would have been forced to withdraw various religious accommodations, including paying for prison chaplains and providing special foods, she said.

An original sponsor of the legislation, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat of Manhattan and Brooklyn, praised the decision. “I am pleased that the Supreme Court has recognized that the Congress has the authority to protect the fundamental religious rights of all Americans,” he said.

The general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, Marc Stern, who served as co-counsel in the case, said, “The decision further reinforces the idea that removing government-imposed burdens to religious practice is not unconstitutional. It will have wide impact, and not just in prisons.”

The Bush administration was also among the many groups asking the court to uphold the law.

Justice Ginsburg noted that in crafting the law, Congress documented a series of “frivolous and arbitrary” barriers to religious worship across the country, including:

* An Ohio prison that refused halal food to Muslim prisoners while providing kosher food to Jews.

* Michigan prisons that allowed prisoners to smoke but not to light Chanukah candles.

* Catholic priests in Oklahoma who fought to serve sacramental wine.

In other prisons, Bibles, Korans, Talmuds, and American Indian objects were “frequently treated with contempt and were confiscated, damaged, or discarded” by prison officials, she wrote in a footnote.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas rebutted the arguments by Ohio and others that the Establishment Clause prevents federal interference with the religious policies of the states. “Ohio’s vision of the range of protected state authority” reads too much into the clause, he wrote.