Tenafly Eruv Association, Inc. v. The Borough Of Tenafly

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that residents failed to establish that affixing of lechis to utility poles to create eruv was expressive conduct entitled to First Amendment protection
• applying strict scrutiny to the Town's justifications for treating lechis differently from those violations of the ordinance it had long tolerated
• asking whether “a reasonable, informed observer, i.e., one familiar with the history and context of private individuals’ access to the public money or property at issue, [would] perceive the challenged government action as endorsing religion?”
• asking whether “a reasonable, informed observer, i.e., one familiar with the history and context of private individuals’ access to the public money or property at issue, [would] perceive the challenged government action as endorsing religion?”
• “under Smith . . . there is no substantial burden requirement when government discriminates against religious conduct”
• “[T]here is no substantial burden requirement when government discriminates against religious conduct.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).