David Schlemm v. Matthew Frank

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• considering whether a prison’s refusal to provide traditional foods for a religious feast amounted to a substantial burden on religious exercise
• noting difficulty of determining when policy seriously burdens exercise of religion but accepting for summary judgment purposes that Navajo prisoner’s inability to eat game meat at Ghost Feast had serious effect on exercise of his religion
• “The Act requires prisons to change their rules to accommodate religious practices; rules’ existence is not a compelling obstacle to change.”
• RLUIPA requires the government “not merely to explain why it denied the exemption but to prove that denying the exemption is the least restrictive means”
• “Schlemm’s arguments under the Constitution’s First and Fifth Amendments (applied to the states by the Fourteenth) we bypass, because [RLUIPA] provides greater protection.”
• “Saving a few dollars is not a compelling interest.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).