John My best efforts to post the decision to the entire group failed. Could you do so? Marc
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Taylor Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:36 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Smith and exemptions That interpretation is not consistent with the Newark Police case or with some other Third Circuit cases, which read considerable bite into the "neutral and generally applicable" requirement. Outside the Third Circuit, I think it is generally unclear when/if categorical exceptions to a general law take that law outside the Smith rule. In a decision vacated on ripeness grounds, the Ninth Circuit said that a law was neutral and generally applicable so long as the pattern of exceptions did not suggest a desire to suppress religious practice. Thomas v Anchorage Equal Rights Comm'm, 165 F.3d 692, 701-02. I have not seen any decision stating that the rule is that religion must be the ONLY non-exempt category for Lukumi to apply. One might say that the ordinances in Lukumi exempted everything but religious practice, but Kennedy was at some pains to point out that the facts there were well beyond the boundary separating Smith cases and heightened scrutiny free exercise cases. Is the decision in the case you mention available on-line? I was looking for it on Westlaw but was unable to find it? John Taylor WVU >>> "Marc Stern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/17/2006 9:58:11 AM >>> Church Ferry Road Baptist Church v Higgins was a church's challenge to a Montana statute requiring disclosure of certain activities and expenditures in regard to ballot initiatives. Most of the opinion addresses free speech implications of campaign finance law regulation, but the court also addressed and dismissed the church's claim that it could not be subject to disclosure laws on free exercise grounds. It claimed that since there were some exemptions in the statute (for newspapers and membership organizations) Lukumi required application of compelling interest analysis. The court rejected this submission, on the ground that Lukumi held that a statue was neutral and generally applicable so long as religion was not the only non-exempt category. Is that right? The Third Circuit apparently disagreed in the Newark Police cases. Marc Stern _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
