Garry A. Borzych v. Matthew J. Frank

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that ban of particular Odinist literature did not violate RLUIPA and thus did not violate First Amendment
• holding that a complete ban on the possession of certain books that the plaintiff claimed were necessary to practice his religion was the “least restrictive means to promote a compelling state interest in safety”
• finding that redacting objectionable passages in books, rather than banning the books altogether, was “not a realistic option”
• noting that actions that do not substantially burden religious exercise cannot support claim under RLUIPA
• explaining that because “[the plaintiff's] only evidence on this point is his unreasoned say-so,” the lack of objective evidence is “insufficient to create a material dispute”
• declining to consider a prisoner’s constitutional claims, and considering solely his RLUIPA claim after noting the heightened protection it offers

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).