| Line 15: |
Line 15: |
| | ''Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores'', 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2760-62 (2014). | | ''Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores'', 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2760-62 (2014). |
| | | | |
| − | Notice that in ''[[City of Boerne v. Flores]]'' (1997), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] invalidated the RFRA to the extent it applied against the states. [[Congress]] reacted by passing the [[Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act]] (RLUIPA) in 2000. | + | Notice that in ''[[City of Boerne v. Flores]]'' (1997), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] invalidated the RFRA to the extent it applied against the states. [[Congress]] reacted by passing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) in 2000. |
| | | | |
| − | Overall, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a dozen decisions mentioning RFRA between 1994 and the end of 2015. The U.S. Court of Appeals, meanwhile, has issued close to 2000 decisions mentioning RFRA during this same two-decade period. | + | Overall, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a dozen decisions mentioning RFRA between 1994 and the end of 2015, with the most recent rank first: |
| | + | |
| | + | *''Holt v. Hobbs'', 135 S. Ct. 853 |
| | + | *''Wheaton College v. Burwell'', 134 S. Ct. 2806 |
| | + | *''Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores'', 134 S. Ct. 2751 |
| | + | *''Hobby Lobby Stores v. Sebelius'', 133 S. Ct. 641 (denying Hobby Lobby's request for emergency relief of an injunction) |
| | + | *''Sossamon v. Texas'', 563 U.S. 277 (holding that sovereign immunity protected Texas against damages to a state prison inmate based on prison policies concerning religious worship) |
| | + | *''Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal'', 546 U.S. 418 (concerning a sacramental tea containing a controlled substance) |
| | + | *''Cutter v. Wilkinson'', 544 U.S. 709 (denying an attempt by prison officials to dismiss a claim by inmates who complained of a lack of accommodation of their religions that were outside of the mainstream) |
| | + | *''Tennessee v. Lane'', 541 U.S. 509 (upholding the authority of Congress to abrogate sovereign immunity for states under the [[Americans with Disabilities Act]]) |
| | + | *''Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents'', 528 U.S. 62 (holding that the abrogation of state immunity exceeded Congress' authority under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus was invalid despite the intent of Congress to abrogate immunity, with respect to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, also known as "ADEA"<ref>Interestingly, this case was argued for the states by future Sixth Circuit judge Jeffrey Sutton.</ref>) |
| | + | *''Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. College Sav. Bank'', 527 U.S. 627 (holding that the Patent Remedy Act was not a valid abrogation of immunity by states under the Eleventh Amendment, because the statute could not be sustained as proper legislation for enforcement of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) |
| | + | *''[[City of Boerne v. Flores]]'', 521 U.S. 507 (1997) (invalidating RFRA with respect to application against states, because it went beyond the valid enforcement powers of the Fourteenth Amendment) |
| | + | *''Swanner v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm'n'', 513 U.S. 979 (1994) (in a denial of [[certiorari]], Justice Thomas mentioned RFRA in his solitary dissent "to resolve whether, under RFRA, an interest in preventing discrimination based on marital status is sufficiently 'compelling' that respondent may substantially burden petitioner's exercise of religion") |
| | + | |
| | + | The U.S. Court of Appeals, meanwhile, has issued close to 2000 decisions mentioning RFRA during this same two-decade period. |
| | + | == References == |
| | + | <references/> |
| | [[category:First Amendment]] | | [[category:First Amendment]] |
| | [[category:RFRA]] | | [[category:RFRA]] |