This Note argues that courts must adhere to strict scrutiny, not only in theory, but also in practice. In doing so, it first gives a brief, general overview of the history of religious freedom in the prison system, with particular focus on the efforts and struggles of religious minorities. Then it addresses the inconsistency between Cutter and Holt while comparing the due deference and hard look approaches. Finally, to provide some concrete examples of why this inconsistency matters, it examines two issues more indepth: First Amendment retaliation claims and equal treatment claims. It looks at several recent cases to further support the conclusion that strict scrutiny is not only necessary to protect religious minorities’ rights, but it is also both practical and feasible, even in the prison context.