|
With all due respect, Doug, the degree to which the Court requires
deference in Cutter pushes RLUIPA a far distance from strict scrutiny as it is
used in constitutional law, as the list has discussed. The result is
intermediate scrutiny.
The phrase "compelling interest" generally means one thing for the
Court when it crafts standards of constitutional review, but as a matter of
statutory construction with RLUIPA, it means something quite different.
Mapping RLUIPA onto Turner is not a stretch at all -- despite the differences if
both were constitutional standards of review.
Marci
In a message dated 6/5/2005 2:13:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"the Turner/RLUIPA standard"! George Orwell would be impressed. |
_______________________________________________ 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.
