Robert Lee Brock Case Summary

The legal system, a system that has been implemented within the United States government in order to solve problems, has been utilized in order to settle conflicts for centuries. By using the legal system, one can achieve a verdict without having biased opinions towards the matter at hand. As the years past, many interesting cases that have gone through the legal system but none more interesting than the inmate, Robert Lee Brock, who sued a correctional officer and facility for 27 million dollars due to the fact that they took an altered pipe from his possession. Though many people thought this case to be one of the most bizarre circumstances in which an individual sued another entity, Brock thought otherwise. Throughout this essay, the objective

§ 2000bb et seq). Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment states that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ,” and at the conclusion of the trial, the court came to a conclusion to deny Brock’s claim under this clause (Ash). Dissatisfied with the result of the ruling, Brock argued that they mislabeled his case and instead his case should have been under RFRA. The RFRA states that the United States “ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected” in which Brock felt as if he was stripped of this protection. He drew on Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151(4th Cir. 1978)), in which “the district court was required to carefully examine a pro se complaint to determine whether it alleged any "constitutional deprivations” (Luttig). When looking at this case, the idea of claiming it under RFRA would fail due to the fact that the actions of Carroll would not deprive Brock of his constitutional rights, but instead would grant Brock freedom that he would be able to excise under the Constitution. Since there was no fundamental evidence provided that this “Prayer” pipe was essential to his ceremony, the removal of the pipe was not protected under the