Carroll College, Inc.

27 Cited authorities

Cutter v. Wilkinson
544 U.S. 709 (2005) Cited 2,212 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act's (RLUIPA) prisoner religious accommodation provision was compatible with the Establishment Clause "because it alleviates exceptional government-created burdens on private religious exercise"
City of Boerne v. Flores
521 U.S. 507 (1997) Cited 1,843 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that Congress may enact prophylactic legislation to remedy or prevent unconstitutional discrimination under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment if the legislation exhibits "a congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end"
Employment Div. v. Smith
494 U.S. 872 (1990) Cited 2,336 times 36 Legal Analyses
Holding that the limitation articulated in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398-i.e., that governmental actions that substantially burden a religious practice must be justified by a compelling governmental interest-does not apply to neutral, generally applicable laws
Wisconsin v. Yoder
406 U.S. 205 (1972) Cited 2,697 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that Wisconsin could not compel school attendance beyond the eighth grade because doing so would "grave[ly] interfere[] with important Amish religious tenets" and "the traditional interest of parents with respect to the religious upbringing of their children"
Thomas v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Emp't Sec. Div.
450 U.S. 707 (1981) Cited 1,741 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that "it is not within the judicial function and judicial competence to inquire whether the petitioner or [another member of his faith] more correctly perceived the commands of their common faith," because "[c]ourts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation"
Sherbert v. Verner
374 U.S. 398 (1963) Cited 2,082 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that governmental regulation that imposes a burden upon religious practice must be narrowly tailored to advance a compelling state interest
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Catholic Bishop
440 U.S. 490 (1979) Cited 460 times 48 Legal Analyses
Holding that church-operated schools are not subject to NLRB jurisdiction
Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission
480 U.S. 136 (1987) Cited 339 times
Holding that "government may (and sometimes must) accommodate religious practices and . . . it may do so without violating the Establishment Clause"
Beck v. Washington
369 U.S. 541 (1962) Cited 538 times
Holding that in the context of judicial determinations, “misapplication cannot be shown to be an invidious discrimination. We have said time and time again that the Fourteenth Amendment does not ‘assure uniformity of judicial decisions . . . .”
Kikumura v. Hurley
242 F.3d 950 (10th Cir. 2001) Cited 411 times
Holding that a plaintiff had a "substantial likelihood" of success in proving that a prison warden's denial of a pastoral visit violated RFRA
Section 2000cc-1 - Protection of religious exercise of institutionalized persons
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 Cited 3,571 times 4 Legal Analyses
Providing that a "substantial burden" in the state prison context must be justified by a compelling governmental interest pursued through the least restrictive means
Section 2000cc-5 - Definitions
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5 Cited 1,225 times 10 Legal Analyses
Recognizing an individual religious practice is not defined by the practices of others in the context of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
Section 2000bb-1 - Free exercise of religion protected
42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1 Cited 1,153 times 27 Legal Analyses
Providing for "appropriate relief" in judicial suit
Section 2000bb-2 - Definitions
42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-2 Cited 216 times 2 Legal Analyses
Cross-referencing § 2000cc–5

Carroll College, Inc.

27 Cited authorities

Holding that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act's (RLUIPA) prisoner religious accommodation provision was compatible with the Establishment Clause "because it alleviates exceptional government-created burdens on private religious exercise"

Holding that Congress may enact prophylactic legislation to remedy or prevent unconstitutional discrimination under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment if the legislation exhibits "a congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end"

Holding that the limitation articulated in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398-i.e., that governmental actions that substantially burden a religious practice must be justified by a compelling governmental interest-does not apply to neutral, generally applicable laws

Holding that Wisconsin could not compel school attendance beyond the eighth grade because doing so would "grave[ly] interfere[] with important Amish religious tenets" and "the traditional interest of parents with respect to the religious upbringing of their children"

Holding that "it is not within the judicial function and judicial competence to inquire whether the petitioner or [another member of his faith] more correctly perceived the commands of their common faith," because "[c]ourts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation"

Holding that governmental regulation that imposes a burden upon religious practice must be narrowly tailored to advance a compelling state interest

Holding that church-operated schools are not subject to NLRB jurisdiction

Holding that "government may (and sometimes must) accommodate religious practices and . . . it may do so without violating the Establishment Clause"

Holding that in the context of judicial determinations, “misapplication cannot be shown to be an invidious discrimination. We have said time and time again that the Fourteenth Amendment does not ‘assure uniformity of judicial decisions . . . .”

Holding that a plaintiff had a "substantial likelihood" of success in proving that a prison warden's denial of a pastoral visit violated RFRA

Providing that a "substantial burden" in the state prison context must be justified by a compelling governmental interest pursued through the least restrictive means

Recognizing an individual religious practice is not defined by the practices of others in the context of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

Providing for "appropriate relief" in judicial suit

Cross-referencing § 2000cc–5