What a fascinating opinion.  J. Ginsburg upholds strict scrutiny with respect to prison regulations, but at the same time demands deference to prison authorities, as does RLUIPA.  At the very end, she seems to caution all lower courts to be very careful before they find for the prisoner.  Seems to me the prisons now have a Turner v. Safley rule in fact, even if it is an RLUIPA federal claim in theory. 
 
One interesting aspect of the opinions is J. Thomas's reservation of the issue of Congress's power under either the Spending or Commerce Clauses.  He seems to withdraw any concerns about spending at the end of his concurrence, though, which leaves the question whether RLUIPA is valid under the Commerce Clause up front and center for RLUIPA in both the prison and land use contexts.  Obviously, further litigation to come.
 
Marci
 
 
 
 
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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.

Reply via email to