67 Cited authorities

County of Sacramento v. Lewis
523 U.S. 833 (1998) Cited 8,964 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that "only a purpose to cause harm unrelated to the legitimate object of arrest will satisfy the element of arbitrary conduct shocking to the conscience, necessary for a due process violation"
O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz
482 U.S. 342 (1987) Cited 3,948 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a policy satisfied this factor even though inmates could not attend a particular Muslim prayer service because the inmates could still "participate in other Muslim religious ceremonies"
Demore v. Kim
538 U.S. 510 (2003) Cited 1,704 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that mandatory detention of noncitizens convicted of a wide variety of offenses does not violate the Due Process Clause
City of Boerne v. Flores
521 U.S. 507 (1997) Cited 1,827 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that RFRA is unconstitutional in so far as it permits suits against state actors
Employment Div. v. Smith
494 U.S. 872 (1990) Cited 2,310 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
INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca
480 U.S. 421 (1987) Cited 2,405 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the phrase "well-founded fear," which is also found in 8 U.S.C. § 1101, is ambiguous
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
387 U.S. 136 (1967) Cited 5,349 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs subject to a regulation had standing to challenge it even though the Attorney General had yet to "authorize criminal and seizure actions for violations of the statute"
Washington v. Davis
426 U.S. 229 (1976) Cited 3,321 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that disparate impact without evidence of discriminatory intent does not violate the Equal Protection Clause
Jackson v. Birmingham Bd.
544 U.S. 167 (2005) Cited 930 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the text of Title IX prohibits a funding recipient from retaliating against a person who speaks out against sex discrimination, because such retaliation is intentional ‘discrimination’ ‘on the basis of sex’ "
Cannon v. University of Chicago
441 U.S. 677 (1979) Cited 2,397 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 created a private right of action for victims of education discrimination
Section 1988 - Proceedings in vindication of civil rights
42 U.S.C. § 1988 Cited 22,117 times 45 Legal Analyses
Finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1920 defines the term "costs" as used in Rule 54(d) and enumerates the expenses that a federal court may tax as a cost under the discretionary authority granted in Rule 54(d)
Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 Cited 15,663 times 51 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"
Section 2000bb - Congressional findings and declaration of purposes
42 U.S.C. § 2000bb Cited 1,571 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 8128 - Review of award
5 U.S.C. § 8128 Cited 386 times
Stating that the "action of the Secretary . . . in allowing or denying a payment" of FECA benefits is "final and conclusive for all purposes and with respect to all questions of law and fact" and "not subject to review by another official of the United States or by a court by mandamus or otherwise."
Section 2000bb-3 - Applicability
42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-3 Cited 106 times
Providing that the RFRA applies to "implementation" of "all Federal law"
Section 618 - Action on reports of selection boards
10 U.S.C. § 618 Cited 24 times
(a) (1) Upon receipt of the report of a selection board submitted to him under section 617(a) of this title, the Secretary of the military department concerned shall review the report to determine whether the board has acted contrary to law or regulation or to guidelines furnished the board under section 615(b) of this title. Following such review, unless the Secretary concerned makes a determination as described in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall submit the report as required by subsection (b)
Section 612 - Composition of selection boards
10 U.S.C. § 612 Cited 14 times
(a) (1) Members of selection boards shall be appointed by the Secretary of the military department concerned in accordance with this section. A selection board shall consist of five or more officers of the same armed force as the officers under consideration by the board. Each member of a selection board (except as provided in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4)) shall be an officer on the active-duty list. Each member of a selection board must be serving in a grade higher than the grade of the officers
Section 613 - Oath of members of selection boards
10 U.S.C. § 613 Cited 8 times
Each member of a selection board shall swear that he will perform his duties as a member of the board without prejudice or partiality and having in view both the special fitness of officers and the efficiency of his armed force. 10 U.S.C. § 613 Added Pub. L. 96-513, title I, §105, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2851. STATUTORY NOTES AND RELATED SUBSIDIARIES EFFECTIVE DATESection effective Sept. 15, 1981, but the authority to prescribe regulations under this section effective on Dec. 12, 1980, see section

In Re: Navy Chaplaincy

67 Cited authorities

Holding that "only a purpose to cause harm unrelated to the legitimate object of arrest will satisfy the element of arbitrary conduct shocking to the conscience, necessary for a due process violation"

Holding that a policy satisfied this factor even though inmates could not attend a particular Muslim prayer service because the inmates could still "participate in other Muslim religious ceremonies"

Holding that mandatory detention of noncitizens convicted of a wide variety of offenses does not violate the Due Process Clause

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

Holding that the phrase "well-founded fear," which is also found in 8 U.S.C. § 1101, is ambiguous

Holding that plaintiffs subject to a regulation had standing to challenge it even though the Attorney General had yet to "authorize criminal and seizure actions for violations of the statute"

Holding that disparate impact without evidence of discriminatory intent does not violate the Equal Protection Clause

Holding that "the text of Title IX prohibits a funding recipient from retaliating against a person who speaks out against sex discrimination, because such retaliation is intentional ‘discrimination’ ‘on the basis of sex’ "

Holding that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 created a private right of action for victims of education discrimination

Finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1920 defines the term "costs" as used in Rule 54(d) and enumerates the expenses that a federal court may tax as a cost under the discretionary authority granted in Rule 54(d)

Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"

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"

Providing that the RFRA applies to "implementation" of "all Federal law"