Barry Hazle, Jr. v. Mitch Crofoot
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
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 When Hazle refused, he was removed from the treatment program and arrested; his parole was revoked, and…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
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Carey v. PiphusSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Johnson v. DuffyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1978
- Smith v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- United States v. HinksonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Bravo Ex Rel. Gonzales v. City of Santa MariaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
- Hoa v. RileyDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2015
- Amador v. BacaDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2014
- Elie Harfouche v. Haifa WehbeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- (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.