Re: RLUIPA Unanimously Upheld in Cutter

[Steven Jamar]

My guesses: On Jun 1, 2005, at 9:30 AM, Marc Stern wrote: Footnote 8 in Justice Ginsburg’s opinion suggests that the state has no obligation to pay for an”inmate’s devotional accessories.” What does this sentence-which involved no issue litigated in Cutter mean for the cost of chaplains (especially for minority faiths), not an "accessory"; obligation to permit; not pay for for religious diets,  the footnote means little here, but religious diets will need to be accommodated unless truly excessively burdensome -- some additional cost will need to be borne or for that matter the administrative costs of complying with RLUIPA, state must comply and pay more to do so -- but need not buy special clothing, icons, altars, etc. Marc Stern --  Prof. Steven D. Jamar                                     vox:  202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law                           fax:  202-806-8428 2900 Van Ness Street NW                            mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC  20008           http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar "I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. . . . Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Martin Luther King, Jr., (1963)

_______________________________________________
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.