Re: The Roberts Court

[Hamilton02]

Good question, Chip.   There is enough of a difference between the various circuits on "substantial burden" under RLUIPA's land use provisions that it can credibly be called a circuit split.  But will the Court feel the need to intervene?  Hard to say.   We're going to see an increasing split on how to implement the standard under the RLUIPA prison provisions in light of Cutter.  Some courts have read it as old-fashioned strict scrutiny, others have not.   Finally, one issue not yet mentioned is the role of the First Amendment and/or RFRA in the clergy abuse federal bankruptcies.  But there are only 2 live bankruptcies at this time and no split as of yet.   Marci           In a message dated 7/25/2006 12:35:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All of the suggestions that have been made in response to this question (religion clause issues likely to come to the Roberts Court) have been insightful..But does anyone know of any real and sharp conflicts among the federal courts of appeals or the state supreme courts on the issues that have been identified? On the issues that I know best (those involving the faith-based initiative), I don't see such conflicts, primarily because the government defendants have rarely appealed the cases they have lost in the lower courts.  The Iowa prison case will be an exception to that, but I don't foresee any sharply defined circuit court conflict coming out of that appeal.  Perhaps an affirmance of the restitution order against InnerChange would produce a cert petition and a grant, because of the novelty of the question. Chip Lupu

_______________________________________________
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.