Citation network
Cutter Vs. Wilkinson
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 31, 2005
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Syllabus October Term, 2004 Cutter V. WilkinsonSearch
-
government-created burdens on private religious exercise. See, e.g., Board of Ed. of Kiryas Joel Village School Dist. v. GrumetSearch
-
take adequate account of the burdens a requested accommodation may impose on nonbeneficiaries, see Estate of Thornton v. CaldorSearch
-
Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. SmithSearch
-
in the application of that standard, see Grutter v. BollingerSearch
-
Saints v. AmosSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion. Cutter v. WilkinsonSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Cutter V. WilkinsonSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 03-9877 Jon B. Cutter, Et Al., Petitioners V. ReginaldSearch
-
stipulated that petitioners are members of bona fide religions and that they are sincere in their beliefs. Gerhardt v. LazaroffSearch
-
Hobbie v. UnemploymentSearch
-
Just last Term, in Locke v. DaveySearch
-
beyond free exercise requirements, without offense to the Establishment Clause. Id. , at 718 (quoting Walz v. TaxSearch
-
s enactment, the Court held, in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. SmithSearch
-
b), the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Citing Lemon v. KurtzmanSearch
-
Compare 349 F. 3d 257, with Madison v. RiterSearch
-
Charles v. VerhagenSearch
-
Mayweathers v. NewlandSearch
-
government-created burdens on private religious exercise. See Board of Ed. of Kiryas Joel Village School Dist. v. GrumetSearch
-
Katcoff v. MarshSearch
-
CA2 1985) (describing the Army chaplaincy program). In Goldman v. WeinbergerSearch
-
reach the question whether the claims of Cutter and Gerhardt continue to present an actual controversy. See Steffel v. ThompsonSearch
-
Bryan v. BureauSearch
-
Guam v. GuerreroSearch
-
Kikumura v. HurleySearch
-
Hearing on Protecting Religious Freedom After Boerne v. FloresSearch
-
challenges under the Spending Clause, Gerhardt v. LazaroffSearch
-
cf. Madison v. RiterSearch
-
mindful that we are a court of review, not of first view, we do not consider them here. See F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v. EmpagranSearch
-
United States v. OaklandSearch
-
s devotional accessories. See, e.g. , Charles v. VerhagenSearch
-
Young v. LaneSearch
-
Hunafa v. MurphySearch
-
Brief for United States 20, and n. 8 (citing, inter alia , Gawloski v. DallmanSearch
-
Taylor v. PeriniSearch
-
rights would have his claims evaluated under the deferential rational-relationship standard described in Turner v. SafleySearch
-
s compelling-interest standard. 349 F. 3d, at 266 (citing Madison v. RiterSearch
-
interest in not facilitating inflammatory racist activity that could imperil prison security and order. Cf. Reimann v. MurphySearch
-
George v. SullivanSearch
-
s professed religiosity. Cf. Gillette v. UnitedSearch
-
quoting United States v. SeegerSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial