Hinson v. Mitchell

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the Supreme Court “seems doubtful that failure to advance the general welfare could ever provide adequate grounds for invalidating a federal statute”
• finding plaintiff’s 18 RLUIPA claim for injunctive relief “falls squarely within the Ex Parte Young exception to 19 sovereign immunity and does not violate the Eleventh Amendment”
• recipients of federal funding must comply with Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
• “Congress is not required to list every factual instance in which a state will fail to comply with a condition. Such specificity would prove too onerous, and perhaps, impossible.”
• upholding the constitutionality of RLUIPA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).