green
Positive treatment
Hot · 71 in 5y
Quoted verbatim 19×
118.5 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2013–2024 · 3 courts ·
…our only task is to determine whether the claimant's belief is sincere, and if so, whether the government has applied substantial pressure on the claimant to violate that belief.
at p. 1137
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2013
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Ortiz y Pino v. Toulouse Oliver
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
we have explicitly held-by analogy to first amendment cases-that establishing a likely rfra violation satisfies the irreparable harm factor.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Chiles v. Salazar
he government nowhere contested the factual adequacy or accuracy of allegations, and given that those allegations were established through a verified complaint, they are deemed admitted for preliminary injunction purposes.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Calvary Albuquerque Inc v. Blinken
(6×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
our only task is to determine whether the claimant's belief is sincere, and if so, whether the government has applied substantial pressure on the claimant to violate that belief.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Colorado Montana Wyoming State Area Conference of the NAACP v. United States Election Integrity Plan
given that . . . allegations were established through a verified complaint, they are deemed admitted for preliminary injunction purposes
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Slovak Republic v. Loveridge (In re Eurogas, Inc.)
prudential standing doctrines are not jurisdictional; they may be forfeited or waived.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Elizabeth Loveridge v. United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Utah
prudential standing doctrines are not jurisdictional: they may be forfeited or waived.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Sause v. Bauer
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
henever standing is unclear, must consider it sua sponte to ensure there is an article iii case or controversy before .
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Department of Business and Professional Regulation v. Florida Association of Wholesale Distributors, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
but statutes that speak to the rights or obligations of parties to a lawsuit . . . are not and should not be treated as 'jurisdictional prescriptions.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
wle conclude that ... hobby lobby and mardel ... qualify as "persons" under rfra.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Southern Nazarene University v. Burwell
(13×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
congress, through rfra, intended to bring free exercise jurisprudence back to the test established before smith. there is no indication congress meant to alter any other aspect of pre-smith jurisprudence . . . .
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Diocese of Cheyenne v. Sebelius
(7×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
establishing a likely rfra violation satisfies the irreparable harm factor
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Inc. v. Sebelius
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
our only task is to determine whether the claimant's belief is sincere, and if so, whether the government has applied substantial pressure on the claimant to violate that belief.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Schools v. Sebelius
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
our only task is to determine whether the claimant's belief is sincere, and if so, whether the government has applied substantial pressure on the claimant to violate that belief.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Roman Catholic Archdiocese v. Sebelius
(5×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
he question here is not whether the reasonable observer would consider the plaintiffs complicit in an immoral act, but rather how the plaintiffs themselves measure their degree of complicity.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Cyril Korte v. HHS
(12×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
e cannot see why an individual operating for-profit retains free exercise protections but an individual who incorporates-even as the sole shareholder-does not, even though he engages in the exact same activities as before.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Apache Stronghold v. USA
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
interpreted uniformly
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Apache Stronghold v. USA
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
interpreted uniformly
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Apache Stronghold v. USA
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
interpreted uniformly
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Navajo Nation v. Wells Fargo & Co.
henever standing is unclear, we must consider it sua sponte to ensure there is an article iii case or controversy before us.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
National Association for Gun Rights v. Polis
Plaintiffs must prove: “(1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likely threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (3) the harm alleged by the movant outweighs any harm to the non-moving party; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.” Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1128 (10th Cir. 2013) (citing Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) aff’d sub nom., Burwell v. Hobby Lobby 22 Appellate Case: 24-1209 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2026 Page: 23 Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jeanpierre v. Public Storage, et al.
“The government substantially burdens religious exercise if it (1) ‘requires participation in an activity prohibited by a sincerely held religious belief,’ (2) ‘prevents participation in conduct motivated by a sincerely held religious belief,’ or (3) ‘places substantial pressure on an adherent . . . to engage in conduct contrary to a sincerely held religious belief.’” Id. (quoting Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1138 (10th Cir. 2013), aff'd sub nom.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Manuel Hernandez-Parrilla v. Mary De Anda-Ybarra, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, El Paso Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Removal Operations, and Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General
Not only would this save federal taxpayers from bearing the expense of his detention, but also “it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1147 (10th Cir. 2013) (quoting Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111, 1132 (10th Cir. 2012)), aff’d sub nom.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bachitar Singh v. Kristi Noem, et al.
Not only would this save federal taxpayers from continuing to bear the expense of his detention, but also “it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1145 (10th Cir. 2013), aff’d sub nom.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brandon Michael Jeanpierre v. Donald J. Trump
He alleges the order “imposes a sanitized historical narrative” that prohibits “depicting American history as ‘inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed.’”56 And he broadly alleges this prevents him “from exercising his religious autonomy to perceive and interpret history,” impedes his religious practice of identifying and confronting “historical realities” and “acknowledging and addressing systemic racism,” forces him to comply with an incorrect historical narrative, compels him “to violate his religious tenants regarding autonomy, truth…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Calvary Albuquerque v. Blinken
Applying consular nonreviewability doctrine here does not “create new policy but . . . construe[s] statutory language in light of a background presumption that was well-established when RFRA was enacted.” Id. at 815-16.18 Calvary cannot square its position with Ajaj. 17 See also Hobby Lobby, 723 F.3d at 1161-62 (Bacharach, J., concurring) (describing that Congress did not “expressly abrogate[]” judicially-created “prudential-standing limitations in RFRA,” in part because “Congress never mentioned prudential restrictions” in the statute). 18 Calvary argues that consular nonrevie…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Renteria v. New Mexico Office of the Superintendent
No. 1, 99 F.4th 1243, 1254 (10th Cir. 2024) (citing Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1145 (10th Cir. 2013), aff’d sub nom.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. Credit Service Inc
Standing under Article III requires an injury that is “[1] concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; [2] fairly traceable to the challenged action; and [3] redressable by a favorable ruling.” Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1126 (10th Cir. 2013) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Fresh Vision OP, Inc. v. Skoglund
(4×)
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009). “[I]n First Amendment cases, the likelihood of success on the merits will often be the determinative factor.” Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1145 (10th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kansas, State of v. United States Department of Education
The Tenth Circuit has held that when a law “is likely unconstitutional,” the government’s interests do “not outweigh a plaintiff’s interest in having [his or her] constitutional rights protected.” Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1145 (10th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation and citation omitted), aff'd sub nom.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pryor v. School District No. 1
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1145 (10th Cir. 2013), aff’d sub nom.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Spiehs v. Larsen
(2×)
Auth., 660 F. App’x 600, 603 (10th Cir. 2016) (“[T]here is a presumption of irreparable harm for the loss of First Amendment freedoms.” (citations omitted)); Hobby Lobby, 723 F.3d at 1145 (“[T]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” (quoting Heideman v. S. Salt Lake City, 348 F.3d 1182, 1190 (10th Cir. 2003))). 16 Hobby Lobby, 723 F.3d at 1145 (“[W]hen [a] law . . . is likely unconstitutional, the[ ] interests [of those the government represents, such as voters] do not outweigh [a plaintiff’s interest]…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mullins v. USA
Additionally, 14 United States v. Mathews, No. 23-1202, 2024 WL 277732 , at *2 (10th Cir. Jan. 25, 2024) (quoting Ogden v. San Juan Cnty., 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994)). 15 Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1128 (10th Cir. 2013), aff'd sub nom.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fulkerson v. New Mexico Office of the Attorney General
The majority of the cases addressing a claim for failure to prosecute, however, decide the matter on a different but related issue: standing.1 And although the Defendant does not move to dismiss for lack of standing, 1 The Tenth Circuit has clarified the difference between standing and cause of action: cause of action “is used to refer roughly to the alleged invasion of recognized legal rights upon which a standing is jurisdictional, Doyle v. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n, 998 F.2d 1559 , 1566 (10th Cir. 1993), and so “whenever standing is unclear,” the court “must consider it sua sponte to ensur…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Blas v. Grisham
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
As the Tenth Circuit has stated, “it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights[.]” Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1145 (10th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Donk v. Grisham
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
As the Tenth Circuit has stated, “it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights[.]” Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1145 (10th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
National Association for Gun Rights v. Grisham
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
As the Tenth Circuit has stated, “it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights[.]” Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1145 (10th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fort v. Lujan Grisham
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
As the Tenth Circuit has stated, “it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights[.]” Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1145 (10th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
We The Patriots USA, INC. v. Grisham
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
As the Tenth Circuit has stated, “it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights[.]” Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1145 (10th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Darius Vitkus v. Antony Blinken
In such a situation, however, a court of appeals reviewing that denial should “perform [its] own assessment of the factors not addressed by the district court.” See In re Search Warrant Issued June 13, 2019, 942 F.3d 159, 171 (4th Cir. 2019) (citing Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1145 (10th Cir. 2013) (en banc)); see also Newsom ex rel.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis
At the preliminary injunction stage, plaintiffs must make a “‘clear showing’ that they have standing.” Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1185 (10th Cir. 2013) (Matheson, J., concurring) (quoting Lopez v. Candaele, 630 F.3d 775, 785 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gospel Light Mennonite Church Medical Aid Plan v. New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance
Preliminary injunction “Under the traditional four-prong test for a preliminary injunction, the party moving for an injunction must show: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likely threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (3) the harm alleged by the movant outweighs any harm to the non-moving party; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.” Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1128 (10th Cir. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Willey v. Sweetwater County School District No 1 Board of Trustees
(2×)
(See e.g., ECF No. 1 at 107-08.) The record is void of any evidence of the application of either aspect of the Policy to any student or situation other than the Student.® PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION LEGAL STANDARD “Under the traditional four-prong test for a preliminary injunction, the party moving for an injunction must show: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likely threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (3) the harm alleged by the movant outweighs any harm to the non-moving party; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.” Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pena Villasano v. Garfield County School District 16
Colo. 2020) (citing Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1145 (10th Cir. 2013)) (“In cases in which the deprivation of constitutional rights is at issue, the likelihood of the success on the merits factor is determinative.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Charles Mack v. John Yost
Whether pressure is substantial turns on “the intensity of the coercion applied by the government to act contrary to [one’s] beliefs.” Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1137 (10th Cir. 2013), aff’d sub nom.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jaskirat Singh v. David Berger
Hobby Lobby Stores v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1146 (10th Cir. 2013) (en banc), aff’d, 573 U.S. 682 (2014); Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468, 482 (2d Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
The Religious Sisters of Mercy v. Xavier Becerra
Other circuits are in agreement that “establishing a likely RFRA violation satisfies the irreparable harm factor.” Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1146 (10th Cir. 2013) (citing Kikumura v. Hurley, 242 F.3d 950, 963 (10th Cir. 2001) (“[A] plaintiff satisfies the irreparable harm analysis by alleging a violation of RFRA.”); O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 342 F.3d 1170, 1187 (10th Cir. 2003) (same)); see also Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468, 482 (2d Cir. 1996) (“Courts have persuasively found that irreparable harm accompanies a substanti…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reiland v. Independent School District No. 11 of Tulsa County, Oklahoma
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1145 (10th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Heideman v. S. Salt Lake City, 348 F.3d 1182, 1190 (10th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Braidwood Management Inc. v. Xavier Becerra
Indeed, “it is beyond question” that religious employers have Article III standing to challenge a government mandate that infringes on their religious liberties “by requiring them to lend what their religion teaches to be an impermissible degree of assistance to the commission of what their religion teaches to be a moral wrong.” Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1154 (10th Cir. 2013) (Gorsuch, J., concurring), aff’d sub nom.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Creaghan v. Austin
To be sure, the Tenth Circuit held as much in Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Seblius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1146 (2013), but that is not the law of this Circuit.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bernacchi v. State of Utah
He had to show “(1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likely threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (3) the harm alleged by the movant outweighs any harm to the non-moving party; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.” Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1128 (10th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (citing Winter v. Nat.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Calvin O'Neil JACKSON
v.
State of NEVADA Brian Sandoval Robert Legrand, Warden
v.
State of NEVADA Brian Sandoval Robert Legrand, Warden
No. 09-17239.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jul 25, 2013.
Lori C. Teicher, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner-Appellant., Jamie J. Resch, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Las Vegas, NV, for Respondents-Appellees.
Goodwin, Murguia, Reinhardt.
Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (3) · D. New Mexico (1)
ORDER
PER CURIAM:In accordance with the Supreme Court’s opinion of June 3, 2013 as well as the resulting judgment, the district court’s denial of Jackson’s habeas petition is
AFFIRMED.