In Warnock v. Archer(6th Cir.8/24/2004),the Sixth Circuit held that a teacher's rights were violated when he was as compelled to attend teacher training courses that began with prayers. The Court emphasized that the violation was not in the coercion to be present when prayers were offered, but because, on the facts, the prayers constituted an endorsement of religion. I am puzzled by the court's insistence that coercion was not the violation, because I thought it settled that coercion to participate in official prayers was unconstitutional. The case also contains a discussion of the right of public employees to display religious items in their offices.
Marc Stern PS-On the power of school officials to exclude religious murals from a school construction site (in the school building, see yesterdays;' 11th Circuit decision in Bannon V. School District(03-13011). I had filed an amicus brief in support of the School District. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 1:19 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Cert granted in Cutter 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
