Jerry Charles v. Richard J. Verhagen and Matthew J. Frank, and United States of America, Intervenor

How courts have described this case

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

• providing that while the plaintiff could not be prevented from possessing Islamic prayer oil, the inmate was nevertheless held responsible for purchasing the oil
• concluding RLUIPA allows an inmate to possess prayer oil that he bought himself
• rejecting constitutional challenges to RLUIPA based upon First and Tenth Amendments and the Spending Clause
• in enacting RFRA and RLUIPA, Congress intended to protect inmates from substantial burdens in practicing their religions
• “Congress has an interest in allocating federal funds to institutions that do not engage in discriminatory behavior or in conduct that infringes impermissibly upon individual liberties.”
• Wisconsin DOC restriction prohibiting prayer oil in cells survived First Amendment scrutiny given the need to control prison administrative costs

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).