How is it that we as lawyers and law professors fell so deeply into thinking that *Smith* meant what it said? Or even what Scalia said it said in his opinion in *Hialeah*? Or even what Kennedy said it meant in Hialeah?
Hosanna-Tabor is an easy case if one doesn't believe Scalia meant what he said in *Smith*. It is a case of the state intruding on the essential ministry operations and doctrinal understandings and application of those understandings of a religion. So I guess the Court is willing to allow the inquiry into doctrine and belief to proceed to some extent, probably using some sort of pretext or sincerity standard to limit the intrusion. Will there be many cases really? It seems to me that BFOQ and the minister exception will, in nearly all instances, be capable of relatively easy application, unclouded by *Smith* language. Steve -- Prof. Steven Jamar Howard University School of Law Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice (IIPSJ)
_______________________________________________ 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.
