Document Type



This Essay inquires: How would the ECtHR decide Holt v. Hobbs, given the same evidence provided at the district court level and the reasoning of the court of appeals? Analyzing this case through the ECtHR’s lens will elucidate the implications of the proportionality test in American jurisprudence. To do so, Part I will compare the two jurisdictions. Part II will summarize Holt v. Hobbs. Part III will describe the ECtHR’s relevant recent free exercise jurisprudence. Part IV will discuss how, based on this analysis, the ECtHR could decide Holt v. Hobbs in light of its overarching principles. Finally, the conclusion will show how RLUIPA has aligned the Supreme Court’s statutory free exercise jurisprudence with the ECtHR’s and will detail some normative concerns that these analytical structures present.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.