Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs

[Michael Masinter]

m: hamilto...@aol.com [mailto:hamilto...@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 10:18 AM
To: dlayc...@virginia.edu; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing   
"substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs


Thanks, Doug.  The letter in support of the new TRFRA amendment   
bill, which would have omitted "substantial" as a modifier, does   
not mention the removal of

"substantial," but is in support of the bill.

 If there is anyone who signed it who opposes removal of   
"substantial," please let me know.  Otherwise, I will assume all
signatories have endorsed the removal of "substantial" as a   
modifier for "burden."  No need to respond if you support the bill  
 as worded.


Thanks all



Marci A. Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
(212) 790-0215
http://sol-reform.com



-Original Message-
From: Douglas Laycock 
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics   
; hamilton02 

Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 11:37 am
Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing   
"substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs


The presence or absence of the word "substantial" was briefly   
addressed in a

follow-up letter here:

http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/faculty/laycock/texasreligfreedamdt2013senate2corrected.pdf

I defended the word's omission. I also suggested that the   
Committee add it if

they thought it mattered.

My apologies for the delay. There was an initial miscommunication   
with our tech
people, and by the time they got this posted, I was caught up in   
Town of Greece

and completely forgot to go back to this.

On Sun, 1 Dec 2013 11:00:33 -0500 (EST)
 hamilto...@aol.com wrote:
>Thanks Marty!
>
>
>Marci A. Hamilton
>Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
>Yeshiva University
>55 Fifth Avenue
>New York, NY 10003
>(212) 790-0215
>http://sol-reform.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.

___
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.

Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs

[Paul Horwitz]

Fair enough. 

> On Dec 2, 2013, at 2:10 PM, "Marci Hamilton"  wrote:
> 
> Absolutely.  They all have lobbyists.   I don't view the term as necessarily 
> perjorative.  Just descriptive.   
> 
> Marci A. Hamilton
> Verkuil Chair in Public Law
> Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
> Yeshiva University
> @Marci_Hamilton 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Dec 2, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Paul Horwitz  wrote:
>> 
>> I'm curious about how this response relates to your response to Chris Lund, 
>> in which you cited the Madisonian assumption that every group will seek the 
>> maximum amount of power. It reminded me of this profile of Valerie Jarrett: 
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/us/politics/valerie-jarrett-is-the-other-power-in-the-west-wing.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&;.
>>  
>> 
>> If Madison was right, then doesn't every group try to maximize its own power 
>> and agenda? And doesn't every politically savvy group use lobbyists and 
>> other means, such as inside power players, to that end? Does anything turn 
>> on describing religious groups as having lobbyists and an agenda, and 
>> implying that other groups are wholly selfless and decent? Or is that just 
>> semantic advocacy?
>> 
>>> On Dec 2, 2013, at 12:45 PM, "Marci Hamilton"  wrote:
>>> 
>>> The Texas municipal league and civil rights groups -- especially those 
>>> protecting children's and women's and gay rights -- would disagree w the 
>>> notion "substantial" is irrelevant.   And the TX legislature had no 
>>> interest,
>>> or so I am told by those groups on the ground in Texas.   I don't want the 
>>> listserv to have the impression that the state RFRA battles are being
>>> fought solely by law professors and religious lobbyists.   The civil rights 
>>> groups that initially backed RFRA
>>> have caught up to the agendas behind the veil
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   
>>> 
>>> Marci A. Hamilton
>>> Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>>> Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
>>> Yeshiva University
>>> @Marci_Hamilton 
>> ___
>> 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.
___
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.

Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs

[Marci Hamilton]

Absolutely.  They all have lobbyists.   I don't view the term as necessarily 
perjorative.  Just descriptive.   

Marci A. Hamilton
Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
Yeshiva University
@Marci_Hamilton 



On Dec 2, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Paul Horwitz  wrote:

> I'm curious about how this response relates to your response to Chris Lund, 
> in which you cited the Madisonian assumption that every group will seek the 
> maximum amount of power. It reminded me of this profile of Valerie Jarrett: 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/us/politics/valerie-jarrett-is-the-other-power-in-the-west-wing.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&;.
>  
> 
> If Madison was right, then doesn't every group try to maximize its own power 
> and agenda? And doesn't every politically savvy group use lobbyists and other 
> means, such as inside power players, to that end? Does anything turn on 
> describing religious groups as having lobbyists and an agenda, and implying 
> that other groups are wholly selfless and decent? Or is that just semantic 
> advocacy?
> 
> On Dec 2, 2013, at 12:45 PM, "Marci Hamilton"  wrote:
> 
>> The Texas municipal league and civil rights groups -- especially those 
>> protecting children's and women's and gay rights -- would disagree w the 
>> notion "substantial" is irrelevant.   And the TX legislature had no interest,
>> or so I am told by those groups on the ground in Texas.   I don't want the 
>> listserv to have the impression that the state RFRA battles are being
>> fought solely by law professors and religious lobbyists.   The civil rights 
>> groups that initially backed RFRA
>> have caught up to the agendas behind the veil
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> Marci A. Hamilton
>> Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>> Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
>> Yeshiva University
>> @Marci_Hamilton 
> ___
> 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.

Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs

[Marci Hamilton]

What they had was the reality of politics and the forces arrayed against them.  
 As one said to me, if it doesn't make a difference why try for a 
constitutional amendment to delete it and fix it permanently?

In federal court, substantial burden has been a difficult hurdle for claimants.



Marci A. Hamilton
Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
Yeshiva University
@Marci_Hamilton 



On Dec 2, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Christopher Lund  wrote:

> Sure, but what evidence did they have?  That is, what evidence did they have 
> that any of the differences in phrasing--"burden," "substantial burden," or 
> "restriction on religious liberty,"--would matter in deciding cases?
> 
> Again I may be wrong about this and I really would like to be corrected if I 
> am.  But I have seen no evidence that these differences have practical payoff.
> 
> On Dec 2, 2013, at 1:45 PM, Marci Hamilton  wrote:
> 
>> The Texas municipal league and civil rights groups -- especially those 
>> protecting children's and women's and gay rights -- would disagree w the 
>> notion "substantial" is irrelevant.   And the TX legislature had no interest,
>> or so I am told by those groups on the ground in Texas.   I don't want the 
>> listserv to have the impression that the state RFRA battles are being
>> fought solely by law professors and religious lobbyists.   The civil rights 
>> groups that initially backed RFRA
>> have caught up to the agendas behind the veil
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> Marci A. Hamilton
>> Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>> Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
>> Yeshiva University
>> @Marci_Hamilton 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 2, 2013, at 12:28 PM, "Douglas Laycock"  wrote:
>> 
>>> Apologies to anyone getting this twice; I think it bounced the first time.
>>>  
>>> What I said is in the second letter (link below) and summarized in the 
>>> e-mail to which Marci responded. We supported the bill as drafted, without 
>>> “substantial;” I also suggested that the committee restore “substantial” if 
>>> it were bothered by the omission. I think most of my co-signers would have 
>>> agreed with that suggestion, but I don’t know that, because they were not 
>>> asked to sign the second letter. I said it didn’t matter much because the 
>>> substantiality of the burden would affect the inevitable balancing of 
>>> burden against government interest; Chris Lund’s recent post better 
>>> documents that explanation.
>>>  
>>> Douglas Laycock
>>> Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
>>> University of Virginia Law School
>>> 580 Massie Road
>>> Charlottesville, VA  22903
>>>  434-243-8546
>>>  
>>> From: hamilto...@aol.com [mailto:hamilto...@aol.com] 
>>> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 10:18 AM
>>> To: dlayc...@virginia.edu; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
>>> Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing 
>>> "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs
>>>  
>>> Thanks, Doug.  The letter in support of the new TRFRA amendment bill, which 
>>> would have omitted "substantial" as a modifier, does not mention the 
>>> removal of 
>>> "substantial," but is in support of the bill. 
>>>  
>>>  If there is anyone who signed it who opposes removal of "substantial," 
>>> please let me know.  Otherwise, I will assume all
>>> signatories have endorsed the removal of "substantial" as a modifier for 
>>> "burden."  No need to respond if you support the bill as worded.
>>>  
>>> Thanks all
>>>  
>>>   
>>> 
>>> Marci A. Hamilton
>>> Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>>> Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
>>> Yeshiva University
>>> 55 Fifth Avenue
>>> New York, NY 10003 
>>> (212) 790-0215 
>>> http://sol-reform.com
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Douglas Laycock 
>>> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics ; 
>>> hamilton02 
>>> Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 11:37 am
>>> Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing 
>>> "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs
>>> 
>>> The presence or absence of the word "substantial" was briefly addressed in 
>>> a 
>>> follow-up letter her

Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs

[Marci Hamilton]

It has certainly made a difference in RLUIPA cases.   I have to say I find it a 
little hard to believe these cases can be generalized across states given how 
few there are and how different each state operates procedurally, but I look 
forward to reading your article and will keep an open mind.

Marci A. Hamilton
Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
Yeshiva University
@Marci_Hamilton 



On Dec 2, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Christopher Lund  wrote:

> 
>> Again I have not seen any evidence that differences in phrasing--"burden," 
>> "substantial burden," "restriction on religious liberty,"--have caused any 
>> differences in result (or even reasoning).  If you have examples, I'd love 
>> to know about them.  If not, it suggests the differences in phrasing don't 
>> matter.  That's my intuition from the cases I've read.  But it may be wrong, 
>> and I'd like to know if it is.
>> 
>> On Dec 2, 2013, at 12:44 PM, Marci Hamilton  wrote:
>> 
>>> Chris--  As I mentioned, CT's has been amended through interpretation  You 
>>> are right about Alabama.   
>>> 
>>> I actually think these terms matter and removal of substantial  violates 
>>> the Establishment Clause but it also shows the endless push by religious 
>>> entities to overcome all laws.   I assume the next wave will be a push to 
>>> interpret compelling to mean absolutely necessary.   That is not intended 
>>> to be snide.  Just an observation.   The Framers expected all those w power 
>>> to
>>> push it as far as they could.  They were right.
>>> 
>>> I look forward to reading your article.
>>> 
>>> Marci A. Hamilton
>>> Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>>> Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
>>> Yeshiva University
>>> @Marci_Hamilton 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Dec 2, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Christopher Lund  wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Connecticut and Alabama use "burden" instead of "substantial burden."  New 
>>>> Mexico, Missouri, and Rhode Island don't use the burden terminology--they 
>>>> speak of "restrictions on religious liberty."  To me, that would seem like 
>>>> it jettisons the requirement of burden altogether, but others may 
>>>> disagree.  Two of the substantial burden states—Arizona and Idaho—say 
>>>> explicitly in their statutes that the requirement is only meant to weed 
>>>> out "trivial, technical, or de minimis burdens."  I talk about the 
>>>> differences, and have a handy though dated chart, in this piece, 
>>>> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1666268.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> It's a mess, in other words.  And I have to say, I don't know how much any 
>>>> of these differences matter.  When I looked at state RFRA cases a few 
>>>> years back, I found these differences in wording didn't matter much.  They 
>>>> are rarely even talked about.  This may be an issue where academics care 
>>>> quite a bit, but judges do not.  Judges are heavily influenced by the 
>>>> facts of these cases; the wording of the RFRAs, I think, is secondary.
>>>> 
>>>> From: hamilto...@aol.com
>>>> To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
>>>> Sent: Monday, December 2, 2013 10:43:51 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing
>>>> "substantial"as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs
>>>> 
>>>> The WIs bill was never passed to my knowledge, but if it went through 
>>>> under the radar, I would be interested.  
>>>> Conn did not include the term in one of the earliest bills, but the Conn 
>>>> Supreme Court read it in.  To my knowledge, only
>>>> KY passed such a bill, and only over the Governor's veto.
>>>> 
>>>> Marci A. Hamilton
>>>> Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>>>> Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
>>>> Yeshiva University
>>>> 55 Fifth Avenue
>>>> New York, NY 10003 
>>>> (212) 790-0215
> ___
> 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.

Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs

[Paul Horwitz]

I'm curious about how this response relates to your response to Chris Lund, in 
which you cited the Madisonian assumption that every group will seek the 
maximum amount of power. It reminded me of this profile of Valerie Jarrett: 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/us/politics/valerie-jarrett-is-the-other-power-in-the-west-wing.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&;.
 

If Madison was right, then doesn't every group try to maximize its own power 
and agenda? And doesn't every politically savvy group use lobbyists and other 
means, such as inside power players, to that end? Does anything turn on 
describing religious groups as having lobbyists and an agenda, and implying 
that other groups are wholly selfless and decent? Or is that just semantic 
advocacy?

> On Dec 2, 2013, at 12:45 PM, "Marci Hamilton"  wrote:
> 
> The Texas municipal league and civil rights groups -- especially those 
> protecting children's and women's and gay rights -- would disagree w the 
> notion "substantial" is irrelevant.   And the TX legislature had no interest,
> or so I am told by those groups on the ground in Texas.   I don't want the 
> listserv to have the impression that the state RFRA battles are being
> fought solely by law professors and religious lobbyists.   The civil rights 
> groups that initially backed RFRA
> have caught up to the agendas behind the veil
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> Marci A. Hamilton
> Verkuil Chair in Public Law
> Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
> Yeshiva University
> @Marci_Hamilton 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
___
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.

Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs

[Christopher Lund]

Sure, but what evidence did they have?  That is, what evidence did they have 
that any of the differences in phrasing--"burden," "substantial burden," or 
"restriction on religious liberty,"--would matter in deciding cases?

Again I may be wrong about this and I really would like to be corrected if I 
am.  But I have seen no evidence that these differences have practical payoff.

> On Dec 2, 2013, at 1:45 PM, Marci Hamilton  wrote:
> 
> The Texas municipal league and civil rights groups -- especially those 
> protecting children's and women's and gay rights -- would disagree w the 
> notion "substantial" is irrelevant.   And the TX legislature had no interest,
> or so I am told by those groups on the ground in Texas.   I don't want the 
> listserv to have the impression that the state RFRA battles are being
> fought solely by law professors and religious lobbyists.   The civil rights 
> groups that initially backed RFRA
> have caught up to the agendas behind the veil
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> Marci A. Hamilton
> Verkuil Chair in Public Law
> Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
> Yeshiva University
> @Marci_Hamilton 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Dec 2, 2013, at 12:28 PM, "Douglas Laycock"  wrote:
>> 
>> Apologies to anyone getting this twice; I think it bounced the first time.
>>  
>> What I said is in the second letter (link below) and summarized in the 
>> e-mail to which Marci responded. We supported the bill as drafted, without 
>> “substantial;” I also suggested that the committee restore “substantial” if 
>> it were bothered by the omission. I think most of my co-signers would have 
>> agreed with that suggestion, but I don’t know that, because they were not 
>> asked to sign the second letter. I said it didn’t matter much because the 
>> substantiality of the burden would affect the inevitable balancing of burden 
>> against government interest; Chris Lund’s recent post better documents that 
>> explanation.
>>  
>> Douglas Laycock
>> Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
>> University of Virginia Law School
>> 580 Massie Road
>> Charlottesville, VA  22903
>>  434-243-8546
>>  
>> From: hamilto...@aol.com [mailto:hamilto...@aol.com] 
>> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 10:18 AM
>> To: dlayc...@virginia.edu; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
>> Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing 
>> "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs
>>  
>> Thanks, Doug.  The letter in support of the new TRFRA amendment bill, which 
>> would have omitted "substantial" as a modifier, does not mention the removal 
>> of 
>> "substantial," but is in support of the bill.  
>>  
>>  If there is anyone who signed it who opposes removal of "substantial," 
>> please let me know.  Otherwise, I will assume all
>> signatories have endorsed the removal of "substantial" as a modifier for 
>> "burden."  No need to respond if you support the bill as worded.
>>  
>> Thanks all
>>  
>>   
>> 
>> Marci A. Hamilton
>> Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>> Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
>> Yeshiva University
>> 55 Fifth Avenue
>> New York, NY 10003 
>> (212) 790-0215 
>> http://sol-reform.com
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Douglas Laycock 
>> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics ; 
>> hamilton02 
>> Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 11:37 am
>> Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing 
>> "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs
>> 
>> The presence or absence of the word "substantial" was briefly addressed in a 
>> follow-up letter here:
>>  
>> http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/faculty/laycock/texasreligfreedamdt2013senate2corrected.pdf
>>  
>> I defended the word's omission. I also suggested that the Committee add it 
>> if 
>> they thought it mattered. 
>>  
>> My apologies for the delay. There was an initial miscommunication with our 
>> tech 
>> people, and by the time they got this posted, I was caught up in Town of 
>> Greece 
>> and completely forgot to go back to this.
>>  
>> On Sun, 1 Dec 2013 11:00:33 -0500 (EST)
>>  hamilto...@aol.com wrote:
>> >Thanks Marty!  
>> > 
>> > 
>> >Marci A. Hamilton
>> >Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>> >Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
>> >Yeshiva University
&g

Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs

[Marci Hamilton]

The Texas municipal league and civil rights groups -- especially those 
protecting children's and women's and gay rights -- would disagree w the notion 
"substantial" is irrelevant.   And the TX legislature had no interest,
or so I am told by those groups on the ground in Texas.   I don't want the 
listserv to have the impression that the state RFRA battles are being
fought solely by law professors and religious lobbyists.   The civil rights 
groups that initially backed RFRA
have caught up to the agendas behind the veil




  

Marci A. Hamilton
Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
Yeshiva University
@Marci_Hamilton 



On Dec 2, 2013, at 12:28 PM, "Douglas Laycock"  wrote:

> Apologies to anyone getting this twice; I think it bounced the first time.
>  
> What I said is in the second letter (link below) and summarized in the e-mail 
> to which Marci responded. We supported the bill as drafted, without 
> “substantial;” I also suggested that the committee restore “substantial” if 
> it were bothered by the omission. I think most of my co-signers would have 
> agreed with that suggestion, but I don’t know that, because they were not 
> asked to sign the second letter. I said it didn’t matter much because the 
> substantiality of the burden would affect the inevitable balancing of burden 
> against government interest; Chris Lund’s recent post better documents that 
> explanation.
>  
> Douglas Laycock
> Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
> University of Virginia Law School
> 580 Massie Road
> Charlottesville, VA  22903
>  434-243-8546
>  
> From: hamilto...@aol.com [mailto:hamilto...@aol.com] 
> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 10:18 AM
> To: dlayc...@virginia.edu; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" 
> as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs
>  
> Thanks, Doug.  The letter in support of the new TRFRA amendment bill, which 
> would have omitted "substantial" as a modifier, does not mention the removal 
> of 
> "substantial," but is in support of the bill.  
>  
>  If there is anyone who signed it who opposes removal of "substantial," 
> please let me know.  Otherwise, I will assume all
> signatories have endorsed the removal of "substantial" as a modifier for 
> "burden."  No need to respond if you support the bill as worded.
>  
> Thanks all
>  
>   
> 
> Marci A. Hamilton
> Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
> Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
> Yeshiva University
> 55 Fifth Avenue
> New York, NY 10003 
> (212) 790-0215 
> http://sol-reform.com
> 
>  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Douglas Laycock 
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics ; 
> hamilton02 
> Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 11:37 am
> Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" 
> as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs
> 
> The presence or absence of the word "substantial" was briefly addressed in a 
> follow-up letter here:
>  
> http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/faculty/laycock/texasreligfreedamdt2013senate2corrected.pdf
>  
> I defended the word's omission. I also suggested that the Committee add it if 
> they thought it mattered. 
>  
> My apologies for the delay. There was an initial miscommunication with our 
> tech 
> people, and by the time they got this posted, I was caught up in Town of 
> Greece 
> and completely forgot to go back to this.
>  
> On Sun, 1 Dec 2013 11:00:33 -0500 (EST)
>  hamilto...@aol.com wrote:
> >Thanks Marty!  
> > 
> > 
> >Marci A. Hamilton
> >Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
> >Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
> >Yeshiva University
> >55 Fifth Avenue
> >New York, NY 10003 
> >(212) 790-0215 
> >http://sol-reform.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.
___
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.

Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs

[Christopher Lund]

> Again I have not seen any evidence that differences in phrasing--"burden," 
> "substantial burden," "restriction on religious liberty,"--have caused any 
> differences in result (or even reasoning).  If you have examples, I'd love to 
> know about them.  If not, it suggests the differences in phrasing don't 
> matter.  That's my intuition from the cases I've read.  But it may be wrong, 
> and I'd like to know if it is.
> 
>> On Dec 2, 2013, at 12:44 PM, Marci Hamilton  wrote:
>> 
>> Chris--  As I mentioned, CT's has been amended through interpretation  You 
>> are right about Alabama.   
>> 
>> I actually think these terms matter and removal of substantial  violates the 
>> Establishment Clause but it also shows the endless push by religious 
>> entities to overcome all laws.   I assume the next wave will be a push to 
>> interpret compelling to mean absolutely necessary.   That is not intended to 
>> be snide.  Just an observation.   The Framers expected all those w power to
>> push it as far as they could.  They were right.
>> 
>> I look forward to reading your article.
>> 
>> Marci A. Hamilton
>> Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>> Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
>> Yeshiva University
>> @Marci_Hamilton 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 2, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Christopher Lund  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Connecticut and Alabama use "burden" instead of "substantial burden."  New 
>>> Mexico, Missouri, and Rhode Island don't use the burden terminology--they 
>>> speak of "restrictions on religious liberty."  To me, that would seem like 
>>> it jettisons the requirement of burden altogether, but others may disagree. 
>>>  Two of the substantial burden states—Arizona and Idaho—say explicitly in 
>>> their statutes that the requirement is only meant to weed out "trivial, 
>>> technical, or de minimis burdens."  I talk about the differences, and have 
>>> a handy though dated chart, in this piece, 
>>> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1666268.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> It's a mess, in other words.  And I have to say, I don't know how much any 
>>> of these differences matter.  When I looked at state RFRA cases a few years 
>>> back, I found these differences in wording didn't matter much.  They are 
>>> rarely even talked about.  This may be an issue where academics care quite 
>>> a bit, but judges do not.  Judges are heavily influenced by the facts of 
>>> these cases; the wording of the RFRAs, I think, is secondary.
>>> 
>>> From: hamilto...@aol.com
>>> To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
>>> Sent: Monday, December 2, 2013 10:43:51 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing
>>> "substantial"as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs
>>> 
>>> The WIs bill was never passed to my knowledge, but if it went through under 
>>> the radar, I would be interested.  
>>> Conn did not include the term in one of the earliest bills, but the Conn 
>>> Supreme Court read it in.  To my knowledge, only
>>> KY passed such a bill, and only over the Governor's veto.
>>> 
>>> Marci A. Hamilton
>>> Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>>> Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
>>> Yeshiva University
>>> 55 Fifth Avenue
>>> New York, NY 10003 
>>> (212) 790-0215 
>>> 
___
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.

Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs

[Marci Hamilton]

Chris--  As I mentioned, CT's has been amended through interpretation  You are 
right about Alabama.   

I actually think these terms matter and removal of substantial  violates the 
Establishment Clause but it also shows the endless push by religious entities 
to overcome all laws.   I assume the next wave will be a push to interpret 
compelling to mean absolutely necessary.   That is not intended to be snide.  
Just an observation.   The Framers expected all those w power to
push it as far as they could.  They were right.

I look forward to reading your article.

Marci A. Hamilton
Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
Yeshiva University
@Marci_Hamilton 



On Dec 2, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Christopher Lund  wrote:

> Connecticut and Alabama use "burden" instead of "substantial burden."  New 
> Mexico, Missouri, and Rhode Island don't use the burden terminology--they 
> speak of "restrictions on religious liberty."  To me, that would seem like it 
> jettisons the requirement of burden altogether, but others may disagree.  Two 
> of the substantial burden states—Arizona and Idaho—say explicitly in their 
> statutes that the requirement is only meant to weed out "trivial, technical, 
> or de minimis burdens."  I talk about the differences, and have a handy 
> though dated chart, in this piece, 
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1666268.
> 
>  
> 
> It's a mess, in other words.  And I have to say, I don't know how much any of 
> these differences matter.  When I looked at state RFRA cases a few years 
> back, I found these differences in wording didn't matter much.  They are 
> rarely even talked about.  This may be an issue where academics care quite a 
> bit, but judges do not.  Judges are heavily influenced by the facts of these 
> cases; the wording of the RFRAs, I think, is secondary.
> 
> From: hamilto...@aol.com
> To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> Sent: Monday, December 2, 2013 10:43:51 AM
> Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing
> "substantial"as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs
> 
> The WIs bill was never passed to my knowledge, but if it went through under 
> the radar, I would be interested.  
> Conn did not include the term in one of the earliest bills, but the Conn 
> Supreme Court read it in.  To my knowledge, only
> KY passed such a bill, and only over the Governor's veto.
> 
> Marci A. Hamilton
> Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
> Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
> Yeshiva University
> 55 Fifth Avenue
> New York, NY 10003 
> (212) 790-0215 
> http://sol-reform.com
>     
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-
> From: Saperstein, David 
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
> Cc: religionlaw 
> Sent: Mon, Dec 2, 2013 10:39 am
> Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" 
> as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs
> 
> Just FY (forgive me if I missed an earlier reference)I believe there is 
> such a bill in Wisconsin as well ?  
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Dec 2, 2013, at 10:18 AM, "hamilto...@aol.com"  wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Doug.  The letter in support of the new TRFRA amendment bill, which 
> would have omitted "substantial" as a modifier, does not mention the removal 
> of   
> "substantial," but is in support of the bill.  
> 
>  If there is anyone who signed it who opposes removal of "substantial," 
> please let me know.  Otherwise, I will assume all
> signatories have endorsed the removal of "substantial" as a modifier for 
> "burden."  No need to respond if you support the bill as worded.
> 
> Thanks all
> 
>   
> 
> Marci A. Hamilton
> Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
> Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
> Yeshiva University
> 55 Fifth Avenue
> New York, NY 10003 
> (212) 790-0215 
> http://sol-reform.com
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Douglas Laycock 
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics ; 
> hamilton02 
> Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 11:37 am
> Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" 
> as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs
> 
> The presence or absence of the word "substantial" was briefly addressed in a 
> follow-up letter here:
> 
> http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/faculty/laycock/texasreligfreedamdt2013senate2corrected.pdf
> 
> I defended the word's omission. I also suggested that the Committee add it if 
> they thought it mattered. 
> 
> My apologies for the delay. There was an initial m

RE: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs

[Douglas Laycock]

Thanks. A more informed version of what I said in the second letter to the TX 
legislature.

 

Douglas Laycock

Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law

University of Virginia Law School

580 Massie Road

Charlottesville, VA  22903

 434-243-8546

 

From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher Lund
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 12:02 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" 
as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs

 

Connecticut and Alabama use "burden" instead of "substantial burden."  New 
Mexico, Missouri, and Rhode Island don't use the burden terminology--they speak 
of "restrictions on religious liberty."  To me, that would seem like it 
jettisons the requirement of burden altogether, but others may disagree.  Two 
of the substantial burden states—Arizona and Idaho—say explicitly in their 
statutes that the requirement is only meant to weed out "trivial, technical, or 
de minimis burdens."  I talk about the differences, and have a handy though 
dated chart, in this piece, 
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1666268.

 

It's a mess, in other words.  And I have to say, I don't know how much any of 
these differences matter.  When I looked at state RFRA cases a few years back, 
I found these differences in wording didn't matter much.  They are rarely even 
talked about.  This may be an issue where academics care quite a bit, but 
judges do not.  Judges are heavily influenced by the facts of these cases; the 
wording of the RFRAs, I think, is secondary.

  _  

From: hamilto...@aol.com <mailto:hamilto...@aol.com> 
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu <mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> 
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2013 10:43:51 AM
Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing
"substantial"as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs

The WIs bill was never passed to my knowledge, but if it went through under the 
radar, I would be interested.   

Conn did not include the term in one of the earliest bills, but the Conn 
Supreme Court read it in.  To my knowledge, only 

KY passed such a bill, and only over the Governor's veto.

Marci A. Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003 
(212) 790-0215 
http://sol-reform.com <http://sol-reform.com/> 

 <https://www.facebook.com/professormarciahamilton?fref=ts> 
<https://twitter.com/marci_hamilton>  

 

-Original Message-
From: Saperstein, David mailto:dsaperst...@rac.org> >
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> >
Cc: religionlaw mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> 
>
Sent: Mon, Dec 2, 2013 10:39 am
Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" 
as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs

Just FY (forgive me if I missed an earlier reference)I believe there is 
such a bill in Wisconsin as well ?  

Sent from my iPhone


On Dec 2, 2013, at 10:18 AM, "hamilto...@aol.com <mailto:hamilto...@aol.com> " 
mailto:hamilto...@aol.com> > wrote:

Thanks, Doug.  The letter in support of the new TRFRA amendment bill, which 
would have omitted "substantial" as a modifier, does not mention the removal of 
 

"substantial," but is in support of the bill.  

 

 If there is anyone who signed it who opposes removal of "substantial," please 
let me know.  Otherwise, I will assume all

signatories have endorsed the removal of "substantial" as a modifier for 
"burden."  No need to respond if you support the bill as worded.

 

Thanks all

 

  

Marci A. Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003 
(212) 790-0215 
http://sol-reform.com <http://sol-reform.com/> 

 <https://www.facebook.com/professormarciahamilton?fref=ts> 
<https://twitter.com/marci_hamilton>  

 

-Original Message-
From: Douglas Laycock mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu> >
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> >; hamilton02 mailto:hamilto...@aol.com> >
Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 11:37 am
Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" 
as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs

The presence or absence of the word "substantial" was briefly addressed in a 
follow-up letter here:
 
http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/faculty/laycock/texasreligfreedamdt2013senate2corrected.pdf
 
I defended the word's omission. I also suggested that the Committee add it if 
they thought it 

RE: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs

[Douglas Laycock]

Apologies to anyone getting this twice; I think it bounced the first time.

 

What I said is in the second letter (link below) and summarized in the
e-mail to which Marci responded. We supported the bill as drafted, without
"substantial;" I also suggested that the committee restore "substantial" if
it were bothered by the omission. I think most of my co-signers would have
agreed with that suggestion, but I don't know that, because they were not
asked to sign the second letter. I said it didn't matter much because the
substantiality of the burden would affect the inevitable balancing of burden
against government interest; Chris Lund's recent post better documents that
explanation. 

 

Douglas Laycock

Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law

University of Virginia Law School

580 Massie Road

Charlottesville, VA  22903

 434-243-8546

 

From: hamilto...@aol.com <mailto:hamilto...@aol.com>
[mailto:hamilto...@aol.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 10:18 AM
To: dlayc...@virginia.edu <mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu> ;
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu <mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> 
Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing
"substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs

 

Thanks, Doug.  The letter in support of the new TRFRA amendment bill, which
would have omitted "substantial" as a modifier, does not mention the removal
of  

"substantial," but is in support of the bill.  

 

 If there is anyone who signed it who opposes removal of "substantial,"
please let me know.  Otherwise, I will assume all

signatories have endorsed the removal of "substantial" as a modifier for
"burden."  No need to respond if you support the bill as worded.

 

Thanks all

 

  

Marci A. Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003 
(212) 790-0215 
http://sol-reform.com <http://sol-reform.com/> 

 <https://www.facebook.com/professormarciahamilton?fref=ts>
<https://twitter.com/marci_hamilton>  

 

-Original Message-
From: Douglas Laycock mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu>
>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> >; hamilton02 mailto:hamilto...@aol.com> >
Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 11:37 am
Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing
"substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs

The presence or absence of the word "substantial" was briefly addressed in a

follow-up letter here:
 
http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/faculty/laycock/texasreligfreedamdt2013senat
e2corrected.pdf
 
I defended the word's omission. I also suggested that the Committee add it
if 
they thought it mattered. 
 
My apologies for the delay. There was an initial miscommunication with our
tech 
people, and by the time they got this posted, I was caught up in Town of
Greece 
and completely forgot to go back to this.
 
On Sun, 1 Dec 2013 11:00:33 -0500 (EST)
 hamilto...@aol.com <mailto:hamilto...@aol.com>  wrote:
>Thanks Marty!  
> 
> 
>Marci A. Hamilton
>Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
>Yeshiva University
>55 Fifth Avenue
>New York, NY 10003 
>(212) 790-0215 
>http://sol-reform.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.

Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs

[Christopher Lund]

Connecticut and Alabama use "burden" instead of "substantial burden."  New 
Mexico, Missouri, and Rhode Island don't use the burden terminology--they speak 
of "restrictions on religious liberty."  To me, that would seem like it 
jettisons the requirement of burden altogether, but others may disagree.  Two 
of the substantial burden states —Arizona and Idaho—say explicitly in their 
statutes that the requirement is only meant to weed out "trivial, technical, or 
de minimis burdens."  I talk about the differences, and have a handy though 
dated chart, in this piece, 
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1666268 . 

It's a mess, in other words.  And I have to say, I don't know how much any of 
these differences matter.  When I looked at state RFRA cases a few years back, 
I found these differences in wording didn't matter much.  They are rarely even 
talked about.  This may be an issue where academics care quite a bit, but 
judges do not.  Judges are heavily influenced by the facts of these cases; the 
wording of the RFRAs, I think, is secondary. 

- Original Message -

From: hamilto...@aol.com 
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2013 10:43:51 AM 
Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing    
"substantial"as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs 

The WIs bill was never passed to my knowledge, but if it went through under the 
radar, I would be interested.   
Conn did not include the term in one of the earliest bills, but the Conn 
Supreme Court read it in.  To my knowledge, only 
KY passed such a bill, and only over the Governor's veto. 



Marci A. Hamilton 
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law 
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law 
Yeshiva University 
55 Fifth Avenue 
New York, NY 10003  
(212) 790-0215   
http://sol-reform.com 

      


-Original Message- 
From: Saperstein, David  
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics  
Cc: religionlaw  
Sent: Mon, Dec 2, 2013 10:39 am 
Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" 
as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs 




Just FY (forgive me if I missed an earlier reference)I believe there is 
such a bill in Wisconsin as well ?   

Sent from my iPhone 

On Dec 2, 2013, at 10:18 AM, " hamilto...@aol.com " < hamilto...@aol.com > 
wrote: 




Thanks, Doug.  The letter in support of the new TRFRA amendment bill, which 
would have omitted "substantial" as a modifier, does not mention the removal of 
 
"substantial," but is in support of the bill.   


 If there is anyone who signed it who opposes removal of "substantial," please 
let me know.  Otherwise, I will assume all 
signatories have endorsed the removal of "substantial" as a modifier for 
"burden."  No need to respond if you support the bill as worded. 


Thanks all 


   



Marci A. Hamilton 
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law 
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law 
Yeshiva University 
55 Fifth Avenue 
New York, NY 10003  
(212) 790-0215   
http://sol-reform.com 

      


-Original Message- 
From: Douglas Laycock < dlayc...@virginia.edu > 
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics < religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >; 
hamilton02 < hamilto...@aol.com > 
Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 11:37 am 
Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" 
as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs 


The presence or absence of the word "substantial" was briefly addressed in a 
follow-up letter here: 
http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/faculty/laycock/texasreligfreedamdt2013senate2corrected.pdf
 I defended the word's omission. I also suggested that the Committee add it if 
they thought it mattered. 

My apologies for the delay. There was an initial miscommunication with our tech 
people, and by the time they got this posted, I was caught up in Town of Greece 
and completely forgot to go back to this.

On Sun, 1 Dec 2013 11:00:33 -0500 (EST) hamilto...@aol.com wrote:
>Thanks Marty!  
>
>
>Marci A. Hamilton
>Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
>Yeshiva University
>55 Fifth Avenue
>New York, NY 10003 
>(212) 790-0215 
> http://sol-reform.com >
>
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Marty Lederman < lederman.ma...@gmail.com >
>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics < religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >
>Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 9:44 am
>Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" 
as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs
>
>
>I assume this is the letter, although it does not specifically address the 
removal of "substantial":
>
> http://txvalues.org/wp-content/uploads/

RE: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs

[Douglas Laycock]

What I said is in the second letter (link below) and summarized in the
e-mail to which you responded. We supported the bill as drafted, without
"substantial;" I also suggested that the committee restore "substantial" if
it were bothered by the omission. I think most of my co-signers would have
agreed with that suggestion, but I don't know that, because they were not
asked to sign the second letter.

 

Douglas Laycock

Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law

University of Virginia Law School

580 Massie Road

Charlottesville, VA  22903

 434-243-8546

 

From: hamilto...@aol.com [mailto:hamilto...@aol.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 10:18 AM
To: dlayc...@virginia.edu; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing
"substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs

 

Thanks, Doug.  The letter in support of the new TRFRA amendment bill, which
would have omitted "substantial" as a modifier, does not mention the removal
of  

"substantial," but is in support of the bill.  

 

 If there is anyone who signed it who opposes removal of "substantial,"
please let me know.  Otherwise, I will assume all

signatories have endorsed the removal of "substantial" as a modifier for
"burden."  No need to respond if you support the bill as worded.

 

Thanks all

 

  

Marci A. Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003 
(212) 790-0215 
http://sol-reform.com <http://sol-reform.com/> 

 <https://www.facebook.com/professormarciahamilton?fref=ts>
<https://twitter.com/marci_hamilton>  

 

-Original Message-
From: Douglas Laycock mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu>
>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> >; hamilton02 mailto:hamilto...@aol.com> >
Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 11:37 am
Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing
"substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs

The presence or absence of the word "substantial" was briefly addressed in a

follow-up letter here:
 
http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/faculty/laycock/texasreligfreedamdt2013senat
e2corrected.pdf
 
I defended the word's omission. I also suggested that the Committee add it
if 
they thought it mattered. 
 
My apologies for the delay. There was an initial miscommunication with our
tech 
people, and by the time they got this posted, I was caught up in Town of
Greece 
and completely forgot to go back to this.
 
On Sun, 1 Dec 2013 11:00:33 -0500 (EST)
 hamilto...@aol.com <mailto:hamilto...@aol.com>  wrote:
>Thanks Marty!  
> 
> 
>Marci A. Hamilton
>Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
>Yeshiva University
>55 Fifth Avenue
>New York, NY 10003 
>(212) 790-0215 
>http://sol-reform.com
> 
>
> 
> 
> 
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marty Lederman mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com> >
>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> >
>Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 9:44 am
>Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing
"substantial" 
as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs
> 
> 
>I assume this is the letter, although it does not specifically address the 
removal of "substantial":
> 
>http://txvalues.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Professor-Support-Texas-Reli
gious-Freedom-Amedment-Senate-version.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
>On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 9:03 AM,  mailto:hamilto...@aol.com> > wrote:
> 
>When a new TRFRA was introduced in Texas earlier this year, I was told that

there was a letter submitted signed by approximately 16 law professors
>who supported the removal of "substantial" from the typical RFRA analysis.

Doug had said on this list that he would send it to me several months ago,
but
>I have never received it.   I assume several on this list signed it.  Could

someone please forward it to me?  It is, essentially, a public document,
having 
been distributed
>to Texas legislators.
> 
> 
>KY actually did pass such a law so I assume this is a new trend.   I am
hearing 
from many civil rights groups who are deeply concerned about such a law, and
I 
would like
>to explain to them the reasoning behing making a de minimis burden the
trigger 
for strict scrutiny.
> 
> 
>Thanks--  Marci
> 
> 
>Marci A. Hamilton
>Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
>Yeshiva University
>55 Fifth Avenue
>New York, NY 10003 
>(212) 790-0215 
>http://sol-reform.com
> 
>
> 
> 
>___
>To post, send message to Religionlaw@lis

Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs

[hamilton02]

The WIs bill was never passed to my knowledge, but if it went through under the 
radar, I would be interested.  
Conn did not include the term in one of the earliest bills, but the Conn 
Supreme Court read it in.  To my knowledge, only
KY passed such a bill, and only over the Governor's veto.


Marci A. Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003 
(212) 790-0215 
http://sol-reform.com





-Original Message-
From: Saperstein, David 
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
Cc: religionlaw 
Sent: Mon, Dec 2, 2013 10:39 am
Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial"   
as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs



Just FY (forgive me if I missed an earlier reference)I believe there is 
such a bill in Wisconsin as well ?  

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 2, 2013, at 10:18 AM, "hamilto...@aol.com"  wrote:



Thanks, Doug.  The letter in support of the new TRFRA amendment bill, which 
would have omitted "substantial" as a modifier, does not mention the removal of 
"substantial," but is in support of the bill.  


 If there is anyone who signed it who opposes removal of "substantial," please 
let me know.  Otherwise, I will assume all
signatories have endorsed the removal of "substantial" as a modifier for 
"burden."  No need to respond if you support the bill as worded.


Thanks all


  


Marci A. Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003 
(212) 790-0215 
http://sol-reform.com





-Original Message-
From: Douglas Laycock 
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics ; 
hamilton02 
Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 11:37 am
Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" 
as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs


The presence or absence of the word "substantial" was briefly addressed in a 
follow-up letter here:

http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/faculty/laycock/texasreligfreedamdt2013senate2corrected.pdf

I defended the word's omission. I also suggested that the Committee add it if 
they thought it mattered. 

My apologies for the delay. There was an initial miscommunication with our tech 
people, and by the time they got this posted, I was caught up in Town of Greece 
and completely forgot to go back to this.

On Sun, 1 Dec 2013 11:00:33 -0500 (EST)
 hamilto...@aol.com wrote:
>Thanks Marty!  
>
>
>Marci A. Hamilton
>Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
>Yeshiva University
>55 Fifth Avenue
>New York, NY 10003 
>(212) 790-0215 
>http://sol-reform.com
>
>    
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-
>From: Marty Lederman 
>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
>Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 9:44 am
>Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" 
as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs
>
>
>I assume this is the letter, although it does not specifically address the 
removal of "substantial":
>
>http://txvalues.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Professor-Support-Texas-Religious-Freedom-Amedment-Senate-version.pdf
>
>
>
>
>On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 9:03 AM,   wrote:
>
>When a new TRFRA was introduced in Texas earlier this year, I was told that 
there was a letter submitted signed by approximately 16 law professors
>who supported the removal of "substantial" from the typical RFRA analysis.   
Doug had said on this list that he would send it to me several months ago, but
>I have never received it.   I assume several on this list signed it.  Could 
someone please forward it to me?  It is, essentially, a public document, having 
been distributed
>to Texas legislators.
>
>
>KY actually did pass such a law so I assume this is a new trend.   I am 
>hearing 
from many civil rights groups who are deeply concerned about such a law, and I 
would like
>to explain to them the reasoning behing making a de minimis burden the trigger 
for strict scrutiny.
>
>
>Thanks--  Marci
>
>
>Marci A. Hamilton
>Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
>Yeshiva University
>55 Fifth Avenue
>New York, NY 10003 
>(212) 790-0215 
>http://sol-reform.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 t

Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs

[Saperstein, David]

Just FY (forgive me if I missed an earlier reference)I believe there is 
such a bill in Wisconsin as well ?

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 2, 2013, at 10:18 AM, "hamilto...@aol.com<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com>" 
mailto:hamilto...@aol.com>> wrote:

Thanks, Doug.  The letter in support of the new TRFRA amendment bill, which 
would have omitted "substantial" as a modifier, does not mention the removal of
"substantial," but is in support of the bill.

 If there is anyone who signed it who opposes removal of "substantial," please 
let me know.  Otherwise, I will assume all
signatories have endorsed the removal of "substantial" as a modifier for 
"burden."  No need to respond if you support the bill as worded.

Thanks all



Marci A. Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
(212) 790-0215
http://sol-reform.com<http://sol-reform.com/>
[http://sol-reform.com/fb.png]<https://www.facebook.com/professormarciahamilton?fref=ts>
   [http://www.sol-reform.com/tw.png] <https://twitter.com/marci_hamilton>


-Original Message-
From: Douglas Laycock mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu>>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>; hamilton02 
mailto:hamilto...@aol.com>>
Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 11:37 am
Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" 
as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs


The presence or absence of the word "substantial" was briefly addressed in a
follow-up letter here:

http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/faculty/laycock/texasreligfreedamdt2013senate2corrected.pdf

I defended the word's omission. I also suggested that the Committee add it if
they thought it mattered.

My apologies for the delay. There was an initial miscommunication with our tech
people, and by the time they got this posted, I was caught up in Town of Greece
and completely forgot to go back to this.

On Sun, 1 Dec 2013 11:00:33 -0500 (EST)
 hamilto...@aol.com<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com> wrote:
>Thanks Marty!
>
>
>Marci A. Hamilton
>Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
>Yeshiva University
>55 Fifth Avenue
>New York, NY 10003
>(212) 790-0215
>http://sol-reform.com
>
>
>
>
>
>-Original Message-----
>From: Marty Lederman 
>mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com>>
>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
>mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
>Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 9:44 am
>Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial"
as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs
>
>
>I assume this is the letter, although it does not specifically address the
removal of "substantial":
>
>http://txvalues.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Professor-Support-Texas-Religious-Freedom-Amedment-Senate-version.pdf
>
>
>
>
>On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 9:03 AM,  
>mailto:hamilto...@aol.com>> wrote:
>
>When a new TRFRA was introduced in Texas earlier this year, I was told that
there was a letter submitted signed by approximately 16 law professors
>who supported the removal of "substantial" from the typical RFRA analysis.
Doug had said on this list that he would send it to me several months ago, but
>I have never received it.   I assume several on this list signed it.  Could
someone please forward it to me?  It is, essentially, a public document, having
been distributed
>to Texas legislators.
>
>
>KY actually did pass such a law so I assume this is a new trend.   I am hearing
from many civil rights groups who are deeply concerned about such a law, and I
would like
>to explain to them the reasoning behing making a de minimis burden the trigger
for strict scrutiny.
>
>
>Thanks--  Marci
>
>
>Marci A. Hamilton
>Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
>Yeshiva University
>55 Fifth Avenue
>New York, NY 10003
>(212) 790-0215
>http://sol-reform.com
>
>
>
>
>___
>To post, send message to 
>Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto: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<mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla

Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs

[hamilton02]

Thanks, Doug.  The letter in support of the new TRFRA amendment bill, which 
would have omitted "substantial" as a modifier, does not mention the removal of 
"substantial," but is in support of the bill.  


 If there is anyone who signed it who opposes removal of "substantial," please 
let me know.  Otherwise, I will assume all
signatories have endorsed the removal of "substantial" as a modifier for 
"burden."  No need to respond if you support the bill as worded.


Thanks all


  


Marci A. Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003 
(212) 790-0215 
http://sol-reform.com





-Original Message-
From: Douglas Laycock 
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics ; 
hamilton02 
Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 11:37 am
Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial"   
as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs


The presence or absence of the word "substantial" was briefly addressed in a 
follow-up letter here:

http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/faculty/laycock/texasreligfreedamdt2013senate2corrected.pdf

I defended the word's omission. I also suggested that the Committee add it if 
they thought it mattered. 

My apologies for the delay. There was an initial miscommunication with our tech 
people, and by the time they got this posted, I was caught up in Town of Greece 
and completely forgot to go back to this.

On Sun, 1 Dec 2013 11:00:33 -0500 (EST)
 hamilto...@aol.com wrote:
>Thanks Marty!  
>
>
>Marci A. Hamilton
>Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
>Yeshiva University
>55 Fifth Avenue
>New York, NY 10003 
>(212) 790-0215 
>http://sol-reform.com
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-
>From: Marty Lederman 
>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
>Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 9:44 am
>Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" 
as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs
>
>
>I assume this is the letter, although it does not specifically address the 
removal of "substantial":
>
>http://txvalues.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Professor-Support-Texas-Religious-Freedom-Amedment-Senate-version.pdf
>
>
>
>
>On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 9:03 AM,   wrote:
>
>When a new TRFRA was introduced in Texas earlier this year, I was told that 
there was a letter submitted signed by approximately 16 law professors
>who supported the removal of "substantial" from the typical RFRA analysis.   
Doug had said on this list that he would send it to me several months ago, but
>I have never received it.   I assume several on this list signed it.  Could 
someone please forward it to me?  It is, essentially, a public document, having 
been distributed
>to Texas legislators.
>
>
>KY actually did pass such a law so I assume this is a new trend.   I am 
>hearing 
from many civil rights groups who are deeply concerned about such a law, and I 
would like
>to explain to them the reasoning behing making a de minimis burden the trigger 
for strict scrutiny.
>
>
>Thanks--  Marci
>
>
>Marci A. Hamilton
>Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
>Yeshiva University
>55 Fifth Avenue
>New York, NY 10003 
>(212) 790-0215 
>http://sol-reform.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.
>
>
>
>
>___
>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.
>
> 

Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA  22903
 434-243-8546

 
___
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.

Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs

[Douglas Laycock]

The presence or absence of the word "substantial" was briefly addressed in a 
follow-up letter here:

http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/faculty/laycock/texasreligfreedamdt2013senate2corrected.pdf

I defended the word's omission. I also suggested that the Committee add it if 
they thought it mattered. 

My apologies for the delay. There was an initial miscommunication with our tech 
people, and by the time they got this posted, I was caught up in Town of Greece 
and completely forgot to go back to this.

On Sun, 1 Dec 2013 11:00:33 -0500 (EST)
 hamilto...@aol.com wrote:
>Thanks Marty!  
>
>
>Marci A. Hamilton
>Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
>Yeshiva University
>55 Fifth Avenue
>New York, NY 10003 
>(212) 790-0215 
>http://sol-reform.com
>
>
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Marty Lederman 
>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
>Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 9:44 am
>Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" 
>as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs
>
>
>I assume this is the letter, although it does not specifically address the 
>removal of "substantial":
>
>http://txvalues.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Professor-Support-Texas-Religious-Freedom-Amedment-Senate-version.pdf
>
>
>
>
>On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 9:03 AM,   wrote:
>
>When a new TRFRA was introduced in Texas earlier this year, I was told that 
>there was a letter submitted signed by approximately 16 law professors
>who supported the removal of "substantial" from the typical RFRA analysis.   
>Doug had said on this list that he would send it to me several months ago, but
>I have never received it.   I assume several on this list signed it.  Could 
>someone please forward it to me?  It is, essentially, a public document, 
>having been distributed
>to Texas legislators.
>
>
>KY actually did pass such a law so I assume this is a new trend.   I am 
>hearing from many civil rights groups who are deeply concerned about such a 
>law, and I would like
>to explain to them the reasoning behing making a de minimis burden the trigger 
>for strict scrutiny.
>
>
>Thanks--  Marci
>
>
>Marci A. Hamilton
>Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
>Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
>Yeshiva University
>55 Fifth Avenue
>New York, NY 10003 
>(212) 790-0215 
>http://sol-reform.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.
>
>
>
>
>___
>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.
>
> 

Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA  22903
 434-243-8546
___
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.

Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs

[hamilton02]

Thanks Marty!  


Marci A. Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003 
(212) 790-0215 
http://sol-reform.com





-Original Message-
From: Marty Lederman 
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 9:44 am
Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" 
as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs


I assume this is the letter, although it does not specifically address the 
removal of "substantial":

http://txvalues.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Professor-Support-Texas-Religious-Freedom-Amedment-Senate-version.pdf




On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 9:03 AM,   wrote:

When a new TRFRA was introduced in Texas earlier this year, I was told that 
there was a letter submitted signed by approximately 16 law professors
who supported the removal of "substantial" from the typical RFRA analysis.   
Doug had said on this list that he would send it to me several months ago, but
I have never received it.   I assume several on this list signed it.  Could 
someone please forward it to me?  It is, essentially, a public document, having 
been distributed
to Texas legislators.


KY actually did pass such a law so I assume this is a new trend.   I am hearing 
from many civil rights groups who are deeply concerned about such a law, and I 
would like
to explain to them the reasoning behing making a de minimis burden the trigger 
for strict scrutiny.


Thanks--  Marci


Marci A. Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003 
(212) 790-0215 
http://sol-reform.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.




___
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.

Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs

[Marty Lederman]

I assume this is the letter, although it does not specifically address the
removal of "substantial":

http://txvalues.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Professor-Support-Texas-Religious-Freedom-Amedment-Senate-version.pdf


On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 9:03 AM,  wrote:

> When a new TRFRA was introduced in Texas earlier this year, I was told
> that there was a letter submitted signed by approximately 16 law professors
> who supported the removal of "substantial" from the typical RFRA analysis.
>   Doug had said on this list that he would send it to me several months
> ago, but
> I have never received it.   I assume several on this list signed it.
>  Could someone please forward it to me?  It is, essentially, a public
> document, having been distributed
> to Texas legislators.
>
>  KY actually did pass such a law so I assume this is a new trend.   I am
> hearing from many civil rights groups who are deeply concerned about such a
> law, and I would like
> to explain to them the reasoning behing making a de minimis burden the
> trigger for strict scrutiny.
>
>  Thanks--  Marci
>
>  Marci A. Hamilton
> Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
> Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
> Yeshiva University
> 55 Fifth Avenue
> New York, NY 10003
> (212) 790-0215
> http://sol-reform.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.
>
___
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.