91 Cited authorities

  1. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife

    504 U.S. 555 (1992)   Cited 28,020 times   138 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"
  2. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc.

    528 U.S. 167 (2000)   Cited 7,199 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs who curtailed their recreational activities on a river due to reasonable concerns about the effect of pollutant discharges into that river had standing
  3. Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine

    450 U.S. 248 (1981)   Cited 19,988 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding in the Title VII context that the plaintiff's prima facie case creates "a legally mandatory, rebuttable presumption" that shifts the burden of proof to the employer, and "if the employer is silent in the face of the presumption, the court must enter judgment for the plaintiff"
  4. Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.

    572 U.S. 118 (2014)   Cited 2,860 times   70 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff seeking to bring suit under a federal statute must show not only that he has standing under Article III, but also that his "complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law" invoked
  5. Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.

    473 U.S. 432 (1985)   Cited 9,750 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that mental disability is not a quasi-suspect class
  6. Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp.

    494 U.S. 472 (1990)   Cited 3,330 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding mootness destroys subject-matter jurisdiction
  7. Holt v. Hobbs

    574 U.S. 352 (2015)   Cited 1,119 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding beard searches address prison's safety concerns in context of religious discrimination claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA")
  8. City of Boerne v. Flores

    521 U.S. 507 (1997)   Cited 1,803 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that RFRA is unconstitutional in so far as it permits suits against state actors
  9. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp.

    429 U.S. 252 (1977)   Cited 4,300 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs need show only that "a discriminatory purpose has been a motivating factor in the decision," because, after all, "[r]arely can it be said that a legislature or administrative body operating under a broad mandate made a decision motivated solely by a single concern, or even that a particular purpose was the ‘dominant’ or ‘primary’ one."
  10. Employment Div. v. Smith

    494 U.S. 872 (1990)   Cited 2,260 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
  11. Rule 25 - Substitution of Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 25   Cited 10,785 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Providing for the automatic substitution at the district-court level of public officers sued in their official capacities
  12. Section 2000cc - Protection of land use as religious exercise

    42 U.S.C. § 2000cc   Cited 2,937 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Requiring comparison with a "nonreligious assembly or institution"
  13. Section 2000bb - Congressional findings and declaration of purposes

    42 U.S.C. § 2000bb   Cited 1,546 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Finding that in Smith, "the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion"
  14. Section 2000cc-5 - Definitions

    42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5   Cited 1,191 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
  15. Section 2000bb-1 - Free exercise of religion protected

    42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1   Cited 1,124 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Providing for "appropriate relief" in judicial suit
  16. Section 2000cc-2 - Judicial relief

    42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2   Cited 886 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Nothing in RLUIPA "shall be construed to amend or repeal the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995"
  17. Section 2000cc-3 - Rules of construction

    42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-3   Cited 317 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Providing that " government may avoid the preemptive force" of RLUIPA by eliminating the substantial burden imposed by a policy or practice, including "by changing the policy or practice" or "by providing exemptions from the policy or practice"