19-7634·CIVIL RIGHTS

Brad Faver v. Harold Clarke

Affirmed

Status

Scheduled
Argued
Opinion Issued (current)

Question Presented

Whether the magistrate judge erred in finding that single vendor policy was least restrictive means under RLUIPA for VDOC to further compelling interests.

Argument Date

October 27, 2021

Argument Time

9:30 a.m.

Panel

Lower Court Judge

Hoppe

Panel

Judge Wilkinson

Judge Niemeyer

Judge Motz

Citation

CaseBrad Faver v. Harold Clarke, No. 19-7634 (4th Cir. Feb. 1, 2022)

PanelWilkinson, Niemeyer & Motz, JJ.

Arguing Counsel

Dallas LePierre

per CA4 audio archive

Laura Cahill

per CA4 audio archive

Panel That Day

3 of 3 cases argued October 27, 2021 before this panel have been decided.

Decided

19-7634· This case

Brad Faver v. Harold Clarke

Opinion Issued

Authored by Judge Niemeyer

20-2245

Tracy Sempowich v. Tactile Systems Technology

Opinion Issued

Authored by Judge Motz

21-1141

Harry Pennington, III v. Fluor Enterprises, Inc.

Opinion Issued

Authored by Judge Wilkinson

Opinions

Majority
by Niemeyer
February 1, 2022
Read opinion ↗
Dissent
by Diana Gribbon Motz
February 1, 2022
Read opinion ↗

Disposition

Affirmed

February 1, 2022