91 Cited authorities

Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife
504 U.S. 555 (1992) Cited 28,036 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"
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc.
528 U.S. 167 (2000) Cited 7,204 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
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"
Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.
572 U.S. 118 (2014) Cited 2,861 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
Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.
473 U.S. 432 (1985) Cited 9,751 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that mental disability is not a quasi-suspect class
Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp.
494 U.S. 472 (1990) Cited 3,331 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding mootness destroys subject-matter jurisdiction
Holt v. Hobbs
574 U.S. 352 (2015) Cited 1,120 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")
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
Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp.
429 U.S. 252 (1977) Cited 4,304 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."
Employment Div. v. Smith
494 U.S. 872 (1990) Cited 2,261 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
Rule 25 - Substitution of Parties
Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 Cited 10,786 times 11 Legal Analyses
Providing for the automatic substitution at the district-court level of public officers sued in their official capacities
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"
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"
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
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
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"
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"

Thai Meditation Association of Alabama, Inc. et al v. City of Mobile, Alabama et al

91 Cited authorities

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"

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

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"

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

Holding that mental disability is not a quasi-suspect class

Holding mootness destroys subject-matter jurisdiction

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")

Holding that RFRA is unconstitutional in so far as it permits suits against state actors

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

Providing for the automatic substitution at the district-court level of public officers sued in their official capacities

Requiring comparison with a "nonreligious assembly or institution"

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"

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

Nothing in RLUIPA "shall be construed to amend or repeal the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995"

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"