Rogers v. Stephens

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that case was prudentially ripe because “[i]n contrast to cases in which the courts are left to hypothesize about how the law might be applied, Plaintiffs’ claims arise from an enforcement action that has already occurred”
• stating that “the Supreme Court has reviewed a RFRA-based 7 challenge to the CSA without requiring that the plaintiffs first seek a religious use 8 exemption from the DEA”
• finding prudential ripeness because “seizure of Plaintiffs’ marijuana presents a concrete factual scenario that demonstrates how the laws, as applied, infringe Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights” (citation and alterations omitted)
• finding standing even though the “[p]laintiffs [did] not allege any threat of prosecution” (emphasis added)
• characterizing the Sossamon decision as reasoning 18 that RLUIPA, like the RFRA, does not contain “the unequivocal expression of state consent that our precedents require”
• analyzing identical language in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).