The present study examines narratives of individuals who spoke about their experiences while incarcerated during the pandemic. The data for the study were gathered from prison reform advocacy organizations that featured individuals’ stories. The narrative findings provide insight into the traumatic experiences that incarcerated people endured, how institutional failures exacerbated their mistrust of the criminal legal system, and their efforts to cope.

When the PLRA was being debated, lawmakers who supported it claimed that too many people behind bars were filing frivolous cases against the government. In fact, incarcerated people are not particularly litigious. Instead, they often face harsh, discriminatory, and unlawful conditions of confinement — and when mistreated, they have little recourse outside the courts.

1) trends in religious freedom revealed by Freedom House’s research and programming, 2) conditions in China, where religious persecution is happening on a mass scale, and 3) recommendations for how the United States and other democracies can strengthen targeted sanctions programs to apply them with greater impact.

In 2018, the global median level of government restrictions on religion – that is, laws, policies and actions by officials that impinge on religious beliefs and practices – continued to climb, reaching an all-time high since Pew Research Center began tracking these trends in 2007.

This paper, with a focus on the development and implementation of prisoners’ religious rights, will cover four main sections. Section I will set out the beginnings of prisoners’ rights. This section details the constitutional framework of these rights with a focus on incarcerated individuals in prisons and proceeds with the statutory frameworks of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (“RFRA”) as well as RLUIPA.

Faculty and students in Harvard Law’s Religious Freedom Clinic work on a pair of cases seeking justice for incarcerated Rastafarians whose dreadlocks were shorn by prison officials.

The objective of this audit was to assess the Federal Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) management and oversight of its Chaplaincy Services Program to support faith-based activities and its effectiveness in preventing security risks and misuse of program resources.

This Note argues that courts must adhere to strict scrutiny, not only in theory, but also in practice. In doing so, it first gives a brief, general overview of the history of religious freedom in the prison system, with particular focus on the efforts and struggles of religious minorities. Then it addresses the inconsistency between Cutter and Holt while comparing the due deference and hard look approaches.

Religious Freedom in Focus is a periodic email update about the Civil Rights Division's religious liberty and religious discrimination cases.