Lemon test not applicable in prisons?

[SIDLEMAN at wi.rr.com]

I was quite surprised to read the following passage from a recent 
district court case, Salahuddin v. Perez, ___, 2006 WL 266574, at *9 
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2006):

When presented with an Establishment Clause claim, a court must ask 
whether the challenged practice (1) has a secular purpose; (2) 
advances or inhibits religion in its principal or primary effect; and 
(3) fosters excessive entanglement between religion and the state. 
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613 (1971). "[B]ecause plaintiff 
is a prisoner challenging a Department of Corrections directive, the 
Lemon test is tempered by the test laid out by the Supreme Court in 
Turner v. Safley, which found that a prison regulation that impinges 
on an inmate's constitutional rights is nevertheless valid 'if it is 
reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." ' Warburton, 
2 F.Supp.2d at 316 (citing Turner, 482 U.S. at 89).

The Court need not engage in a determination of whether or not the 
decision to establish the program under Fishkill's chaplaincy and 
academic departments passed the Lemon test, because the undisputed 
facts of record clearly demonstrate that Defendants' decision to 
establish CMP/CHSP under the auspices of the chaplaincy and 
educational departments, rather than under the auspices of Plaintiff's 
proposed inmate organization, was reasonably related to legitimate 
penological interests within the meaning of the Turner standard.
	* * *

Does anyone know whether this is a conventional understanding of 
Lemon's applicability in prisons?  Or is it simply wrong?

Thanks.

Scott Idleman
Marquette University