Legal Opinion

Barry Hazle, Jr. v. Mitch Crofoot

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided August 23, 2013No. 11-15354PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:

In 2007, citing “uncommonly well-settled case law,” we held that the First Amendment is violated when the state coerces an individual to attend a religion-based drug or alcohol treatment program. Inouye v. Kemna, 504 F.3d 705, 712, 716 (9th Cir.2007). Plaintiff Barry Hazle is an atheist who, over his numerous objections, was forced as a condition of parole to participate in a residential drug treatment program that required him to acknowledge a higher power. When Hazle refused, he was removed from the treatment program and arrested; his parole was revoked, and…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Carey v. PiphusSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. Johnson v. DuffyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1978
  4. Smith v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  5. United States v. HinksonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Bravo Ex Rel. Gonzales v. City of Santa MariaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
  2. Hoa v. RileyDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2015
  3. Amador v. BacaDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2014
  4. Elie Harfouche v. Haifa WehbeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
  5. (PC) Antonio Gutierrez v. California Department of Corrections and RehabilitationDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API