Washington v. Klem
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
This case requires us to define “substantial burden” under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq, to determine whether the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections’ (DOC’s) restriction on inmates that they possess in their cells only ten books at a time substantially burdens inmate Henry Unseld Washington’s religious exercise. We hold that it does. Because the DOC is unable to show that its ten-book policy is the least restrictive means to further its compelling governmental interest in the…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Sherbert v. VernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- City of Boerne v. FloresSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security DivisionSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by206 opinions
- Nelson v. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2009
- Charles Mack v. Warden Loretto FCICourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2016
- Couch v. JabeCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2012
- Jova v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2009
- Davis v. PowellDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2012
201 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.