Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 14 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. Anchor | green | “be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the constitution.” | 4 |
| 2 | David Schlemm v. Matthew Frank | green | “articulated a standard much easier to satisfy” | 4 |
| 3 | David Schlemm v. Matthew Frank | green | “serious violation of religious beliefs,” | 3 |
| 4 | Moussazadeh v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice | green | “and satisfied all other muslims in the prison, but did not meet the particularly nuanced version of halal food” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.