Free Exercise

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.

Online
Essay
Free Exercise in a Pandemic
Zalman Rothschild
Zalman Rothschild is a law clerk to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, a Nonresident Fellow at the Stanford Constitutional Law Center, and Faculty at the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America. He earned a J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School, a Ph.D. from New York University, and an M.A. from Yeshiva University.

The author wishes to thank Rick Garnett and Zachary David for helpful comments.

It was only a matter of time before the Supreme Court would have to issue a decision on a church’s challenge to a state’s stay-at-home orders.