First Amendment

Print
Comment
Volume 92.8
Sincerity or Substantial Burden? Investigating the Proper Threshold Test for Prisoner Free Exercise Claims
David Wang
B.A. 2020, Cornell University; M.Sc. 2023, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; J.D. Candidate 2026, The University of Chicago Law School.

I would like to thank Professor Geoffrey Stone and many members of The University of Chicago Law Review, including Jack Brake, Zoë Ewing, Katrina Goto, Alex Moreno, Maria Sofia Peña, and others for their thoughtful advice and feedback.

When prisoner officials burden the free exercise rights of prisoners, prisoners can seek recourse under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, due to the specialized and restrictive nature of prisons, courts adjudicate these claims under a reasonableness test set out in the case Turner v. Sadfley instead of a strict scrutiny standard. While circuits agree on using the Turner test for prisoner free exercise claims, there is a deep circuit split on the proper threshold test for these types of claims. While some circuits hold that inmates need to show that their religious practice was substantially burdened, other circuits hold that inmates just need to show that their religious practice was sincere. These threshold tests produce significant differences in how prisoner free exercise claims are litigated in court. After exploring the relevant Supreme Court guidance, this Comment aims to settle the split by examining each threshold test on its respective merits, considering neutral criteria such as screening ability, adherence to judicial capacity, and workability.

Constitutional Law First Amendment Free Exercise
Online
Essay
Regulating Dark Patterns in Light of Free Speech
Elijah Greisz
Elijah Greisz is a J.D. Candidate at The University of Chicago Law School, Class of 2026. He thanks the University of Chicago Law Review Online team for their helpful feedback.

Beware dark patterns. The name should be a warning, perhaps alluding to the dark web, the “Dark Lord” Sauron, or another archetypically villainous and dangerous entity. Rightfully included in this nefarious bunch, dark patterns are software interfaces that manipulate users into doing things they would not normally do. Because of these First Amendment complications, the constitutionality of dark pattern restrictions is an unsettled question. To begin constructing an answer, we must look at how dark patterns are regulated today, how companies have begun to challenge the constitutionality of such regulations, and where dark patterns fall in the grand scheme of free speech. Taken together, these steps inform an approach to regulation going forward.

Cybersecurity Data Privacy First Amendment Privacy Technology Technology Regulation
Print
Article
Volume 92.1
Reestablishing Religion
Richard Schragger
Walter L. Brown Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law.

For comments and discussion, we thank Arvind Abraham, Alan Brownstein, Richard Garnett, Frederick Gedicks, Linda Greenhouse, Aziz Huq, John C. Jeffries, Jr., Michael Klarman, Andrew Koppelman, Martin Lederman, Leah Litman, Ira C. Lupu, James Nelson, James Oleske, Richard Primus, Frank Ravitch, Kate Redburn, Zalman Rothschild, James E. Ryan, Elizabeth Sepper, Anna Su, Mark Tushnet, and participants in the Nootbaar Workshop at Pepperdine Caruso Law; the Workshop in Law, Philosophy, and Political Theory at the Kadish Center for Morality, Law & Public Affairs at UC Berkeley School of Law; the “Text and (What Kind of) History?” conference hosted by the Stanford Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School; and the Cornell Summer Faculty Workshop. Generous support was provided by the Milton and Eleanor Gould Fund at Cornell Law School. For research assistance, we thank Io Jones, Mackenzie Kubik, Leah Schwartz, and Mary Triplett.

Micah Schwartzman
Hardy Cross Dillard Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law.

For comments and discussion, we thank Arvind Abraham, Alan Brownstein, Richard Garnett, Frederick Gedicks, Linda Greenhouse, Aziz Huq, John C. Jeffries, Jr., Michael Klarman, Andrew Koppelman, Martin Lederman, Leah Litman, Ira C. Lupu, James Nelson, James Oleske, Richard Primus, Frank Ravitch, Kate Redburn, Zalman Rothschild, James E. Ryan, Elizabeth Sepper, Anna Su, Mark Tushnet, and participants in the Nootbaar Workshop at Pepperdine Caruso Law; the Workshop in Law, Philosophy, and Political Theory at the Kadish Center for Morality, Law & Public Affairs at UC Berkeley School of Law; the “Text and (What Kind of) History?” conference hosted by the Stanford Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School; and the Cornell Summer Faculty Workshop. Generous support was provided by the Milton and Eleanor Gould Fund at Cornell Law School. For research assistance, we thank Io Jones, Mackenzie Kubik, Leah Schwartz, and Mary Triplett.

Nelson Tebbe
Jane M.G. Foster Professor of Law, Cornell Law School.

For comments and discussion, we thank Arvind Abraham, Alan Brownstein, Richard Garnett, Frederick Gedicks, Linda Greenhouse, Aziz Huq, John C. Jeffries, Jr., Michael Klarman, Andrew Koppelman, Martin Lederman, Leah Litman, Ira C. Lupu, James Nelson, James Oleske, Richard Primus, Frank Ravitch, Kate Redburn, Zalman Rothschild, James E. Ryan, Elizabeth Sepper, Anna Su, Mark Tushnet, and participants in the Nootbaar Workshop at Pepperdine Caruso Law; the Workshop in Law, Philosophy, and Political Theory at the Kadish Center for Morality, Law & Public Affairs at UC Berkeley School of Law; the “Text and (What Kind of) History?” conference hosted by the Stanford Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School; and the Cornell Summer Faculty Workshop. Generous support was provided by the Milton and Eleanor Gould Fund at Cornell Law School. For research assistance, we thank Io Jones, Mackenzie Kubik, Leah Schwartz, and Mary Triplett.

In the last few years, the Supreme Court has upended its doctrine of religious freedom under the First Amendment. Now, the government must treat religion equally with respect to providing public benefits. But it must also grant special exemptions from regulations that burden religion. We refer to this regime as structural preferentialism. This Article offers an external, political account of changes in Free Exercise and Establishment Clause jurisprudence by analyzing them as if they were the result of political conflicts between competing interest groups. Focusing on the role of religion in political polarization, rapid disaffiliation from denominations, and shifting strategies to fund religious schools, this political perspective has explanatory and predictive power that extends beyond conventional legal arguments about text, history, and precedent. Applying this approach, we predict that structural preferentialism will transform First Amendment doctrine and provide material grounds for its own entrenchment.

Volumes