The oral argument transcript is up, http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-6827_8758.pdf. I haven't read it yet, but from the SCOTUS Blog report, it looks like things went poorly for the state. http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/argument-report-trouble-at-the-lectern/
We've had little discussion of this case on the list. I've presumed that's because there is a wide consensus that the case is easy. SCOTUS Blog likewise concludes that "[t]he case, at least from the tenor of the oral argument, did not seem to be a difficult one." But assuming that Holt wins, there remains the important question of the precise language the Court will use to explicate the compelling interest standard in the prison context, where officials get some deference. ----------------------------------------- Thomas C. Berg James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy University of St. Thomas School of Law MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403-2015 Phone: 651 962 4918 Fax: 651 962 4881 E-mail: tcb...@stthomas.edu<mailto:tcb...@stthomas.edu> SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author='261564 Weblog: http://www.mirrorofjustice.blogs.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________
_______________________________________________ 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.
