Has anyone written anything about (or given some thought to) the possibility of RFRA being employed to challenge the federal government's deportation policies.
For example, might a professor or registrar at a private school be permitted to assert RFRA as a defense to a federal law requiring her to seek and disclose the immigration status of students? Could a "sanctuary city" assert that it is relieving any of its employees from any obligation to disclose information about the immigration status of persons within the jurisdiction to federal immigration authorities if it would violate their religious beliefs to do so? Might the city argue that such an order complies with federal law because it is mandated by RFRA? May a church provide sanctuary to an undocumented refugee at risk of deportation and assert a RFRA claim to avoid prosecution for doing so? The church would assert it is prohibited by its beliefs from denying sanctuary in these circumstances. I recognize, of course, that successfully asserting a substantial burden on religious exercise only shifts the burden to the government to justify its actions under strict scrutiny. Alan Brownstein
_______________________________________________ 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.
