Sentences with phrase «compelling government interest»

In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed as compelling government interests both the attainment of racial diversity and the avoidance of segregation in schools (see «Affirmative Action Docketed,» legal beat, Winter 2007).

The 1993 federal statute states, «Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability» without compelling government interest.

The text says that the state can not «substantially burden a person's exercise of religion» unless it is furthering a «compelling government interest» and acting in the least restrictive way possible.

Under this requirement, the government must prove that the preference is «narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.»

It would then be up to the government to prove that it has a compelling government interest in infringing on one's right to act or not act.

It provides extra level of strict scrutiny protection by requiring the government to demonstrate a compelling government interest for violating someone's religious liberty, and requires the infringement to be done in the least restrictive means.

Where a religious institution engages in conduct that the law finds deeply problematic — what the law calls «compelling government interests» — then the law overrides religious liberty protections.

Please describe the compelling government interest satisfied by the ACA.

Officials previously saw the requirement as serving a compelling government interest, according to the new rule, but they now recognize the mandate as «impos (ing) a substantial burden on the exercise of religion» under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the Department of the Interior did not show the regulation was the «least restrictive means» to advance the compelling government interest in protecting the bald eagle because of its status as a national symbol.

«Since the educational benefits of diversity have been once again confirmed as a compelling government interest, the relevant question becomes how universities can narrowly tailor their policies to achieve this end.»

In order to pass strict scrutiny, the policy must further a «compelling government interest» and be «narrowly tailored» to promote only that interest.

The District Court granted summary judgment to the school district, finding that state law did not bar the district's use of the racial tiebreaker and that the plan survived strict scrutiny on the federal constitutional claim because it was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.

The Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc, 395 F. 3d 1168 (2005), and overruled the panel decision, affirming the District Court's determination that Seattle's plan was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, Parents Involved VII, 426 F. 3d, at 1192 - 1193.

The panel determined that while achieving racial diversity and avoiding racial isolation are compelling government interests, id., at 964, Seattle's use of the racial tiebreaker was not narrowly tailored to achieve these interests, id., at 980.

In the Seattle case, the District Court granted the school district summary judgment, finding, inter alia, that its plan survived strict scrutiny on the federal constitutional claim because it was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.

The Church says «We believe this brutalist, unwelcoming, bunkerlike building is not a proper representation of our practice or our theology and, that without a compelling government interest, our members, not the Historic Preservation Review Board, are in the best position to determine that representation.»

The rule of thumb for content - based restrictions on speech is that they must be the least restrictive way of achieving a compelling government interest.

In Barnes, the SJC rejected a challenge to OpenCourt's live streaming, holding that a court order restricting video streaming from the courtroom would be a form of prior restraint and could be upheld only if it is the least restrictive, reasonable measure necessary to protect a compelling government interest.

The would - be criminal act has to involve a compelling government interest, it has to narrowly address just that interest, and has to be the least restrictive way of achieving the interest.

We can grant that limiting gang violence is a compelling government interest: but outlawing tattoos is not the least - restrictive way of addressing the problem, and it is not narrowly tailored.