English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

When Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)2 in 1993, it aimed to increase dramatically the level of protection for inmates' religious liberties, which had only received minimal judicial scrutiny in the past. RFRA was primarily a response to the 1990 case of Employment Division v. Smith,3 in which the Supreme Court refused to apply strict scrutiny review when generally applicable laws burdened religious practices." In addition to resurrecting strict scrutiny for these cases, RFRA extended this heightened level of protection to the free exercise claims of prisoners. "We want religion in the prisons," declared Senator Orrin Hatch, one of the original sponsors of RFRA. "It is one of the best rehabilitative influences we can have. Just because they are prisoners does not mean all of their rights should go down the drain .... Despite RFRA's apparent drastic change in the degree of protection for prisoners' religious rights cases, RFRA's stated level of scrutiny is not the controlling factor in the way many courts are deciding prisoners' free exercise cases. The reason stems from two tendencies that have plagued the history of the judiciary's involvement in this area of law and continue to exist under RFRA. First, many courts have failed to understand and evaluate prisoners'

Faith Profaned: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Religion in the Prisons