Well, I can't speak for DOJ here, because I doubt that I've read all their briefs, but I think the answer is "no." Section 3 does not have an "individualized assessment" provision that instantiates Sherbert/Lukumi, nor any of the other section 5 provisions found in section 2(b) of the land-use section. Unless I'm misremembering, it is exclusively (and expressly) a Spending/Commerce provision -- thus, a plaintiff must either show that the agency receives federal funds, or that the substantial burden on religious exercise affects (or its alleviation would affect) interstate commerce.
----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 2:05 PM Subject: RE: Cert granted in Cutter > Marty---I haven't really been following the prison side on RLUIPA. Has the DOJ been arguing--as on the land use side of RLUIPA--that it merely mirrors existing Free Exercise doctrine? > > Marci > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. > _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
