Lereiya Edmonson Martin Holts v. Hobbs (Reaction paper) Holts v. Hobbs it’s not merely about inmates in prisons. In fact this case is about who had been barred from growing their beard for religious reasons while being in prison. The main issue of this case is about Religion. Another issue is whether the Department grooming policy requires petitioner Holt’s shaving his beard violate his religious beliefs, and as a result of did the Department required the government to show that they can get their desire goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion freedom. The Arkansas Department’s grooming policy have violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Act (RLUIPA).When RLUIPA was not applied to the court, this has stop the government state or local from imposing a substantial burden on an institutionalized person who wishes to express or exercise their religious …show more content…
The Department believes that to observe “compelling interest” it is clear that a bearded Muslim inmate changing his appearance it definitely a compelling government interest. However, legitimately making this decision one must keep in mind that to be compelling you can’t be under inclusive, because these are broad ordinance and is in fact a least restrictive means. Applying a least restrictive mean is to test the standards are imposed by the courts and the validity of the legislation and based it on constitutional interests. However based on the least restrictive mean you can’t have laws that are over broad, and a shaving half-inch beard is overboard because it is against Holt’s religious beliefs. So a grooming policy requesting him to shave when it is against his religion is a least restrictive mean and you cannot
The Supreme Court reversed the decision concluding that Smith et al. were using their religious beliefs and the First Amendment to condone their illegal drug use. In addition the Justices expressed the view that the law applied to the general public, not to just one religious group. Therefore, in a 6-3 decision, the Supr...
Overall this was a great case to read. Arizona v. Hicks held that the 4th Amendment requires the police to have probable cause to seize items in plain view. Again the major facts of this case were that the police had initial entry into Hick’s apartment. Even though it took place without a warrant.
I. Facts: 15-year-old delinquent, Gerald Gault and a friend were arrested after being accused of making a lewd phone call to a neighbor. Gerald’s parents were not notified of the situation. After a hearing, the juvenile court judge ordered Gerald to surrender to the State Industrial School until he reached the age of minority (21). Gerald's attorney petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the state of Arizona for violating the juvenile’s 14th Amendment due process rights. The Superior Court of Arizona and the Arizona State Supreme Court both dismissed the writ affirmatively deciding that the juvenile’s due process rights were not violated.
In the case of Sandin v. Conner, DeMont Conner, an inmate at a maximum security correctional facility in Hawaii, was subjected to a strip search in 1987. During the search he directed angry and foul language at the officer. Conner was charged with high misconduct and sentenced to 30 days of segregation by the adjustment committee. Conner was not allowed to present witnesses in his defense. Conner completed the 30-day segregation sentence, after which he requested a review of his case. Upon review, prison administration found no evidence to support the misconduct claim. The State District Court backed the decision, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Sandin had a liberty interest in remaining free from disciplinary segregation. This case is significant because it confronts the question of which constitutional rights individuals retain when they are incarcerated. In Sandin v. Conner, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that prisoners have a right to due process only when “atypical and significant deprivation” has occurred. Prisons must now be vigilant in protecting the rights of inmates. It is a delicate matter in the sense that, when an individual enters prison, their rights to liberty are by and large being forfeited. The rights in question are important to prisoners because prisons are closed environments where by nature their freedoms are already very limited. They need a well-defined set of rights so that prisons do not unduly infringe on their liberty. Without court intervention, prison administrators would likely not have allowed this particular right, as it adds another layer of bureaucracy that can be seen as interfering with the efficiency of their job. Also, it could lead to a glut of prisoners claiming violations of their rights under the court ruling.
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow case is a litigation that was brought by an atheist father seeking for a determination of the constitutionality of the practice of recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by public school students since it contained the phrase “under God.” The Supreme Court had two major issues to determine i.e. whether Newdow had the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the practice and school board’s policy and whether the phrase “under God” was an infringement of the Establishment Clause of the country’s constitution. In its ruling, the Supreme Court argued that Michael Newdow did not have the legal standing to file the litigation since he was a non-custodial parent.
This assignment will cover a fictitious name of Mary Cooper a woman accused of harboring a fugitive, and illegal stolen equipment. The police attempted an illegal search and seizure in her home without a search warrant. This violates her Fourth Amendment rights. Cooper held that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the exclusion of evidence found though an illegal search by state and local police officers, extending to the state a rule that previously applied onto to federal law enforcement.
Harvey Leroy Sossamon III was denied the ability to use the prison chapels, in the state prison in which he was being held (Oyez.org). Sossamon had been in the Robertson Unit of the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice since 2002 (Fasoro). His claims for use were that of religious purposes, the state prison warden in fact denied all inmates that were cell restricted access to such activities. Sossamon was entitled to the use the chapel, in fact it was in his rights. However the prison inmates were provided with different ways and places to practice their religion. Regardless Sossamon explained that the alternatives were absent of Christian symbol. In fact Sossamon witnessed Muslim inmates receive better treatment (Findlaw.com). This came in the forms of treatment, meals and other necessities. Sossamon also added that the alternatives were noisy from the exterior and unfit for religious worship due in part to bad conditions (Fasoro). Sossamon also confirmed if the inmates did not cease prayer when ordered by the guards they were subjected to retaliation or other physical mistreatment (Findlaw.com).Sossamon to advantage of his Secular activity time and began to study the law. Finally when the inmates were on lockdown, could not participate in religious activities but could still participate in schedule secular activities (Fasoro).
In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults which were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public attention and quite a large number of briefs were filed in the cases.
Missouri and Florida’s New Laws Constitutional? Missouri Law Review, Spring2012, Vol. 77 Issue 2, p567-589. 23p. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=aef9f6f7-734d-4a6c-adae-2b97736ecc93%40sessionmgr111&vid=2&hid=127
“Criminal Law and Procedure -Eighth Amendment- Juvenile Life Without Parole Sentences: Graham v. Florida” (2009) Harvard Law Review. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Apr. 2011.
Missouri and Florida’s New Laws Constitutional? Missouri Law Review, Spring2012, Vol. 77 Issue 2, p567-589. 23p. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=aef9f6f7-734d-4a6c-adae-2b97736ecc93%40sessionmgr111&vid=2&hid=127
The other purpose of this act was to “Provide result of a general or neutral law. ”(RFRA Summary, Map of the RFRA)The only exception to this rule is, If the government can demonstrate the following three things, that there is a compelling state interest, that a particular law, rule, decision or action actually furthers that compelling state interest, if there is a compelling state interest and this action furthers it, then the government must use the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. Notice that the burden is on the government; the government cannot simply state that it has a compelling interest, but it must also demonstrate each of the three requirements above. This section also states that this Act provides a cause of action or a defense for any person whose religious exercise has been burdened, and provides for legal fees.
On the 11th of June, 1982 following the conviction of a criminal offense, Robert Johnson was sentenced to two years probation. The terms of his probation included his person, posessions, and residence being searched upon reasonable request. When a search warrant was executed for Johnson’s roommate, officers testified that with enough reasonable suspicion, they were able to search Johnson’s living area as well.
Doe case, Taking place in Texas in the year 2000, ended with a five to four verdict (Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe). The decision was in support of Doe, a Mormon family and a Catholic family that contested the school’s support of prayer at football games. The result of this case restricted the first amendment freedom of religion. The “wall” between religion and government that the Establishment Clause creates was present in this case (Cornell University Law School). The end of this case led to a strong divide between public schools and students’ religious practices. This case caused social changes to occur that affected public schools across America. Other public schools and parents of public school students saw the outcome of this case as an example of the “wall” that exists between church and state and that it will be enforced. Because of this case, many schools changed or abolished their own policies regarding
In the U.S. case, Belgrave vs. Coughlin, an inmate of the Sing-Sing Correctional Institution in New York, claims his religious rights were revoked. Nekyon Belgrave, a Rastafarian, says the Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS" hereinafter) denied his request to wear his religious head covering known as a crown. A crown is a loose-knit, circular hat that covers the wearer’s dreadlocks (Anderson, 1).