Freeman v. Arpaio
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
The one confirmed treatment is listed below: Shakur v. Schriro displaced Freeman's objective-centrality requirement for prison free-exercise claims after recognizing intervening Supreme Court authority. The other opinions applied unaffected parts of Freeman or merely reported Shakur's act in history parentheticals.
542 later cases cite Freeman v. Arpaio; 223 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Freeman v. Arpaio?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Abrogated
-
The Ninth Circuit displaced Freeman's objective-centrality test for prison free-exercise claims with a sincerity test, recognizing that intervening Supreme Court decisions disapproved the centrality inquiry.
Shakur v. Schriro · Ninth Circuit · filed
Nevertheless, in Freeman and Bryant, which both followed Hernandez and Smith, we continued to adhere to the objective centrality test. Given the Supreme Court’s disapproval of the centrality test, we are satisfied that the sincerity test set forth in Malik and Callahan determines whether the Free Exercise Clause applies.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Freeman v. Arpaio and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace