RE: The Roberts Court

[Marc Stern]

I think that the Court is less concerned with
circuit splits in the religion clause area than elsewhere. Marsh presented no
circuit split; neither did Lynch, Witters, Rosenberger Widmar, City of Boerne and Kiryas Joel.

Zobrest, and many of the state aid to the
school cases. Whether because the Court views this area as peculiarly its own
or because it finds the subject interesting or a different dynamic I cannot
say.

Marc Stern









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 4:51
PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: The Roberts Court



 





Good question, Chip.   There is
enough of a difference between the various circuits on "substantial
burden" under RLUIPA's land use provisions that it can credibly be
called a circuit split.  But will the Court feel the need to
intervene?  Hard to say.





 





We're going to see an increasing split on
how to implement the standard under the RLUIPA prison provisions in light of
Cutter.  Some courts have read it as old-fashioned strict scrutiny, others
have not.





 





Finally, one issue not yet mentioned is
the role of the First Amendment and/or RFRA in the clergy abuse federal
bankruptcies.  But there are only 2 live bankruptcies at this
time and no split as of yet.





 





Marci





 





 





 





 





 





In a message dated 7/25/2006 12:35:39
P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:





All of the suggestions that have been
made in response to this 
question (religion clause issues likely to come to the Roberts Court) 
have been insightful..But does anyone know of any real and sharp 
conflicts among the federal courts of appeals or the state supreme 
courts on the issues that have been identified?

On the issues that I know best (those involving the faith-based 
initiative), I don't see such conflicts, primarily because the government 
defendants have rarely appealed the cases they have lost in the lower 
courts.  The Iowa
prison case will be an exception to that, but I don't 
foresee any sharply defined circuit court conflict coming out of that 
appeal.  Perhaps an affirmance of the restitution order against 
InnerChange would produce a cert petition and a grant, because of the 
novelty of the question.

Chip Lupu 







 








___
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: The Roberts Court

[Hamilton02]

Good question, Chip.   There is enough of a difference between 
the various circuits on "substantial burden" under RLUIPA's land use 
provisions that it can credibly be called a circuit split.  But will 
the Court feel the need to intervene?  Hard to say.
 
We're going to see an increasing split on how to implement the standard 
under the RLUIPA prison provisions in light of Cutter.  Some courts have 
read it as old-fashioned strict scrutiny, others have not.
 
Finally, one issue not yet mentioned is the role of the First Amendment 
and/or RFRA in the clergy abuse federal bankruptcies.  But there are only 2 
live bankruptcies at this time and no split as of yet.
 
Marci
 
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 7/25/2006 12:35:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
All of 
  the suggestions that have been made in response to this question (religion 
  clause issues likely to come to the Roberts Court) have been 
  insightful..But does anyone know of any real and sharp conflicts among the 
  federal courts of appeals or the state supreme courts on the issues that 
  have been identified?On the issues that I know best (those involving 
  the faith-based initiative), I don't see such conflicts, primarily because 
  the government defendants have rarely appealed the cases they have lost in 
  the lower courts.  The Iowa prison case will be an exception to that, 
  but I don't foresee any sharply defined circuit court conflict coming out 
  of that appeal.  Perhaps an affirmance of the restitution order 
  against InnerChange would produce a cert petition and a grant, because of 
  the novelty of the question.Chip Lupu 

 
___
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: The Roberts Court

[Lupu]

Aren't there independent state constitutional law grounds involved in 
the Mt. Soledad case? If so, won't those grounds undermine the 
likelihood of the Supreme Court ever deciding it on the merits?

On 25 Jul 2006 at 12:23, Volokh, Eugene wrote:

>  I was thinking about the Mt. Soledad case, but it may not be
> optimal from the conservatives' viewpoint, since it's an overtly
> Christian symbol.  The line Scalia drew in the Ten Commandments cases
> seemed to be between the Christian symbols and
> Judeo-Christian-Muslim(?) symbols, with the former generally not
> allowed and the latter allowed. The Mt. Soledad cross could still be
> upheld on some specific grounds, for instance that it's in context
> likely to be seen as a war memorial and not just a cross (I'm
> skeptical of that on the facts, but that's one possible argument) --
> but these grounds may be too fact-specific to warrant full Court
> review.  So I'd think that the conservatives on the Court might prefer
> a more Ten-Commandments-like case.
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> > Friedman, Howard M.
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 12:18 PM
> > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> > Subject: RE: The Roberts Court
> > 
> > I would think that the Mt. Soledad Cross case might get to the
> > Court. Justice Kennedy has already granted a stay of the trial
> > court's order pending disposition of the appeal to the 9th Circuit.
> > So at least one Justice has a strong interest in it. 
> >  See 
> > http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2006/07/justice-kennedy-sta
> > ys-order-t
> > o-remove.html
> > *
> > Howard M. Friedman
> > Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus
> > University of Toledo College of Law
> > Toledo, OH 43606-3390
> > Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732
> > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > * 
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lupu
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 12:32 PM
> > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> > Subject: RE: The Roberts Court
> > 
> > All of the suggestions that have been made in response to 
> > this question (religion clause issues likely to come to the 
> > Roberts Court) have been insightful..But does anyone know of 
> > any real and sharp conflicts among the federal courts of 
> > appeals or the state supreme courts on the issues that have 
> > been identified?
> > 
> > On the issues that I know best (those involving the 
> > faith-based initiative), I don't see such conflicts, 
> > primarily because the government defendants have rarely 
> > appealed the cases they have lost in the lower courts.  The 
> > Iowa prison case will be an exception to that, but I don't 
> > foresee any sharply defined circuit court conflict coming out 
> > of that appeal.  Perhaps an affirmance of the restitution 
> > order against InnerChange would produce a cert petition and a 
> > grant, because of the novelty of the question.
> > 
> > Chip Lupu 
> > 
> > On 25 Jul 2006 at 10:32, Berg, Thomas C. wrote:
> > 
> > > Direct aid to religious schools and institutions in 
> > general: there may 
> > > be five votes now for the Thomas plurality opinion in Mitchell v.
> > > Helms that (at least) direct aid on an equal per-capita basis is
> > > permissible.  The direct-aid  vs. private-choice 
> > distinction has been 
> > > relevant in litigation in the last five years with respect both to
> > > education programs (e.g. Columbia Union College, 4th CIr.) and to
> > > social services programs (e.g. Faith Works case, 7th CIr.), 
> > suggesting 
> > > that a program that tested the contours or continuing 
> > validity of the 
> > > distinction may be litigated soon.
> > > 
> > > Tom Berg
> > > University of St. Thomas School of Law (MInnesota)
> > > 
> > >   _
> > > 
> > > From: Marc Stern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Tue 7/25/2006 9:01 AM
> > > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> > > Subject: RE: The Roberts Court
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I would add that an early Establishment Clause challenge to 
> > RLUIPA's 
> > > land use provisions seems likely, as does  renewed litigation
> > > about charitable choice-i.e., the Iowa prison litigation. Perhaps
> > > too the Court will look at the growing split about the ministerial
> > > 
> > exception 
> > > to Title VII. Marc Stern
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >  ] On Behalf Of Volokh,
> > > Eugene Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:45 AM To: Law & 
> > Religion issues 
> > > for Law Academics Subject: RE: The Roberts Court
> > > 
> > > I'd think that the government religious speech cases might be
> > > coming
> > > back, because the last attempted resolution (in the Ten
> > > Commandments cases) is likely to prove quite unadministrable, and

RE: The Roberts Court

[Douglas Laycock]

Title: Re: The Roberts Court






I would also add that he 
won't change his vote on the creche in Allegheny County.
 

Douglas Laycock
Alice McKean Young Regents Chair in 
Law
The University of Texas at Austin
 
Mailing Address:
Prof. Douglas Laycock
University of Michigan Law School
625 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI  48109


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 
behalf of Ed BraytonSent: Tue 7/25/2006 2:43 PMTo: Law 
& Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: The Roberts 
Court

Volokh, Eugene 
wrote:>   I was thinking about the 
Mt. Soledad case, but it may not be>optimal from the conservatives' 
viewpoint, since it's an overtly>Christian symbol.  The line Scalia 
drew in the Ten Commandments cases>seemed to be between the Christian 
symbols and Judeo-Christian-Muslim(?)>symbols, with the former generally 
not allowed and the latter allowed.>The Mt. Soledad cross could still be 
upheld on some specific grounds,>for instance that it's in context likely 
to be seen as a war memorial>and not just a cross (I'm skeptical of that 
on the facts, but that's one>possible argument) -- but these grounds may 
be too fact-specific to>warrant full Court review.  So I'd think 
that the conservatives on the>Court might prefer a more 
Ten-Commandments-like case.> >I would be more than happy 
to take bets on whether Scalia would redrawthat line if the Mt. Soledad case 
reaches the court. I predict that suchline-drawing will be non-existent in 
his judgement on that case.Ed 
Brayton___To post, send 
message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change 
options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 
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: The Roberts Court

[Ed Brayton]

Volokh, Eugene wrote:


I was thinking about the Mt. Soledad case, but it may not be
optimal from the conservatives' viewpoint, since it's an overtly
Christian symbol.  The line Scalia drew in the Ten Commandments cases
seemed to be between the Christian symbols and Judeo-Christian-Muslim(?)
symbols, with the former generally not allowed and the latter allowed.
The Mt. Soledad cross could still be upheld on some specific grounds,
for instance that it's in context likely to be seen as a war memorial
and not just a cross (I'm skeptical of that on the facts, but that's one
possible argument) -- but these grounds may be too fact-specific to
warrant full Court review.  So I'd think that the conservatives on the
Court might prefer a more Ten-Commandments-like case.
 

I would be more than happy to take bets on whether Scalia would redraw 
that line if the Mt. Soledad case reaches the court. I predict that such 
line-drawing will be non-existent in his judgement on that case.


Ed Brayton
___
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: The Roberts Court

[Volokh, Eugene]

I was thinking about the Mt. Soledad case, but it may not be
optimal from the conservatives' viewpoint, since it's an overtly
Christian symbol.  The line Scalia drew in the Ten Commandments cases
seemed to be between the Christian symbols and Judeo-Christian-Muslim(?)
symbols, with the former generally not allowed and the latter allowed.
The Mt. Soledad cross could still be upheld on some specific grounds,
for instance that it's in context likely to be seen as a war memorial
and not just a cross (I'm skeptical of that on the facts, but that's one
possible argument) -- but these grounds may be too fact-specific to
warrant full Court review.  So I'd think that the conservatives on the
Court might prefer a more Ten-Commandments-like case.

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Friedman, Howard M.
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 12:18 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: The Roberts Court
> 
> I would think that the Mt. Soledad Cross case might get to the Court.
> Justice Kennedy has already granted a stay of the trial 
> court's order pending disposition of the appeal to the 9th 
> Circuit. So at least one Justice has a strong interest in it. 
>  See 
> http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2006/07/justice-kennedy-sta
> ys-order-t
> o-remove.html
> *
> Howard M. Friedman
> Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus
> University of Toledo College of Law
> Toledo, OH 43606-3390
> Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732
> E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> * 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lupu
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 12:32 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: The Roberts Court
> 
> All of the suggestions that have been made in response to 
> this question (religion clause issues likely to come to the 
> Roberts Court) have been insightful..But does anyone know of 
> any real and sharp conflicts among the federal courts of 
> appeals or the state supreme courts on the issues that have 
> been identified?
> 
> On the issues that I know best (those involving the 
> faith-based initiative), I don't see such conflicts, 
> primarily because the government defendants have rarely 
> appealed the cases they have lost in the lower courts.  The 
> Iowa prison case will be an exception to that, but I don't 
> foresee any sharply defined circuit court conflict coming out 
> of that appeal.  Perhaps an affirmance of the restitution 
> order against InnerChange would produce a cert petition and a 
> grant, because of the novelty of the question.
> 
> Chip Lupu 
> 
> On 25 Jul 2006 at 10:32, Berg, Thomas C. wrote:
> 
> > Direct aid to religious schools and institutions in 
> general: there may 
> > be five votes now for the Thomas plurality opinion in Mitchell v.
> > Helms that (at least) direct aid on an equal per-capita basis is 
> > permissible.  The direct-aid  vs. private-choice 
> distinction has been 
> > relevant in litigation in the last five years with respect both to 
> > education programs (e.g. Columbia Union College, 4th CIr.) and to 
> > social services programs (e.g. Faith Works case, 7th CIr.), 
> suggesting 
> > that a program that tested the contours or continuing 
> validity of the 
> > distinction may be litigated soon.
> > 
> > Tom Berg
> > University of St. Thomas School of Law (MInnesota)
> > 
> >   _
> > 
> > From: Marc Stern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tue 7/25/2006 9:01 AM
> > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> > Subject: RE: The Roberts Court
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I would add that an early Establishment Clause challenge to 
> RLUIPA's 
> > land use provisions seems likely, as does  renewed litigation about 
> > charitable choice-i.e., the Iowa prison litigation. Perhaps too the 
> > Court will look at the growing split about the ministerial 
> exception 
> > to Title VII. Marc Stern
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >  ] On Behalf Of Volokh, 
> > Eugene Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:45 AM To: Law & 
> Religion issues 
> > for Law Academics Subject: RE: The Roberts Court
> > 
> > I'd think that the government religious speech cases might be
> > coming
> > back, because the last attempted resolution (in the Ten Commandments
> > cases) is likely to prove quite unadministrable, and 
> because there's a 
> > decent chance that now there are five votes to jettison the 
> > endorsement test.
> > 
> > Eugene
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >  ] On Behalf Of Tepker, 
> > Rick
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:38 AM 
> > To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 
> > Subject: The Roberts Court
> > 
> > 
> >   

RE: The Roberts Court

[Friedman, Howard M.]

I would think that the Mt. Soledad Cross case might get to the Court.
Justice Kennedy has already granted a stay of the trial court's order
pending disposition of the appeal to the 9th Circuit. So at least one
Justice has a strong interest in it.  See
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2006/07/justice-kennedy-stays-order-t
o-remove.html
*
Howard M. Friedman 
Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus
University of Toledo College of Law
Toledo, OH 43606-3390 
Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
* 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lupu
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 12:32 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: The Roberts Court

All of the suggestions that have been made in response to this 
question (religion clause issues likely to come to the Roberts Court) 
have been insightful..But does anyone know of any real and sharp 
conflicts among the federal courts of appeals or the state supreme 
courts on the issues that have been identified?

On the issues that I know best (those involving the faith-based 
initiative), I don't see such conflicts, primarily because the
government 
defendants have rarely appealed the cases they have lost in the lower 
courts.  The Iowa prison case will be an exception to that, but I don't 
foresee any sharply defined circuit court conflict coming out of that 
appeal.  Perhaps an affirmance of the restitution order against 
InnerChange would produce a cert petition and a grant, because of the 
novelty of the question.

Chip Lupu 

On 25 Jul 2006 at 10:32, Berg, Thomas C. wrote:

> Direct aid to religious schools and institutions in general: there may
> be five votes now for the Thomas plurality opinion in Mitchell v.
> Helms that (at least) direct aid on an equal per-capita basis is
> permissible.  The direct-aid  vs. private-choice distinction has been
> relevant in litigation in the last five years with respect both to
> education programs (e.g. Columbia Union College, 4th CIr.) and to
> social services programs (e.g. Faith Works case, 7th CIr.), suggesting
> that a program that tested the contours or continuing validity of the
> distinction may be litigated soon.
> 
> Tom Berg
> University of St. Thomas School of Law (MInnesota)
> 
>   _  
> 
> From: Marc Stern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tue 7/25/2006 9:01 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: The Roberts Court
> 
> 
> 
> I would add that an early Establishment Clause challenge to RLUIPA's
> land use provisions seems likely, as does  renewed litigation about
> charitable choice-i.e., the Iowa prison litigation. Perhaps too the
> Court will look at the growing split about the ministerial exception
> to Title VII. Marc Stern 
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  ] On Behalf Of Volokh,
> Eugene Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:45 AM To: Law & Religion issues
> for Law Academics Subject: RE: The Roberts Court 
> 
> I'd think that the government religious speech cases might be
> coming 
> back, because the last attempted resolution (in the Ten Commandments
> cases) is likely to prove quite unadministrable, and because there's a
> decent chance that now there are five votes to jettison the
> endorsement test. 
> 
> Eugene 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  ] On Behalf Of Tepker,
> Rick 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:38 AM 
> To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 
> Subject: The Roberts Court 
> 
> 
> What issues concerning the First Amendment's religion
> clauses are likely to be the earliest to come before the Roberts
> Court? I'd appreciate any predictions or guesses from the list. 
> 
> ___ 
> 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 c

RE: The Roberts Court

[Lupu]

All of the suggestions that have been made in response to this 
question (religion clause issues likely to come to the Roberts Court) 
have been insightful..But does anyone know of any real and sharp 
conflicts among the federal courts of appeals or the state supreme 
courts on the issues that have been identified?

On the issues that I know best (those involving the faith-based 
initiative), I don't see such conflicts, primarily because the government 
defendants have rarely appealed the cases they have lost in the lower 
courts.  The Iowa prison case will be an exception to that, but I don't 
foresee any sharply defined circuit court conflict coming out of that 
appeal.  Perhaps an affirmance of the restitution order against 
InnerChange would produce a cert petition and a grant, because of the 
novelty of the question.

Chip Lupu 

On 25 Jul 2006 at 10:32, Berg, Thomas C. wrote:

> Direct aid to religious schools and institutions in general: there may
> be five votes now for the Thomas plurality opinion in Mitchell v.
> Helms that (at least) direct aid on an equal per-capita basis is
> permissible.  The direct-aid  vs. private-choice distinction has been
> relevant in litigation in the last five years with respect both to
> education programs (e.g. Columbia Union College, 4th CIr.) and to
> social services programs (e.g. Faith Works case, 7th CIr.), suggesting
> that a program that tested the contours or continuing validity of the
> distinction may be litigated soon.
> 
> Tom Berg
> University of St. Thomas School of Law (MInnesota)
> 
>   _  
> 
> From: Marc Stern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tue 7/25/2006 9:01 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: The Roberts Court
> 
> 
> 
> I would add that an early Establishment Clause challenge to RLUIPA's
> land use provisions seems likely, as does  renewed litigation about
> charitable choice-i.e., the Iowa prison litigation. Perhaps too the
> Court will look at the growing split about the ministerial exception
> to Title VII. Marc Stern 
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  ] On Behalf Of Volokh,
> Eugene Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:45 AM To: Law & Religion issues
> for Law Academics Subject: RE: The Roberts Court 
> 
> I'd think that the government religious speech cases might be
> coming 
> back, because the last attempted resolution (in the Ten Commandments
> cases) is likely to prove quite unadministrable, and because there's a
> decent chance that now there are five votes to jettison the
> endorsement test. 
> 
> Eugene 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  ] On Behalf Of Tepker,
> Rick 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:38 AM 
> To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 
> Subject: The Roberts Court 
> 
> 
> What issues concerning the First Amendment's religion
> clauses are likely to be the earliest to come before the Roberts
> Court? I'd appreciate any predictions or guesses from the list. 
> 
> ___ 
> 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.
> 
> 



Ira C. ("Chip") Lupu
F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law 
The George Washington University Law School 
2000 H St., NW
Washington D.C 20052

(202) 994-7053

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


___
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: The Roberts Court

[Berg, Thomas C.]

Direct aid to religious schools and institutions in general: there may be
five votes now for the Thomas plurality opinion in Mitchell v. Helms that
(at least) direct aid on an equal per-capita basis is permissible.  The
direct-aid  vs. private-choice distinction has been relevant in litigation
in the last five years with respect both to education programs (e.g.
Columbia Union College, 4th CIr.) and to social services programs (e.g.
Faith Works case, 7th CIr.), suggesting that a program that tested the
contours or continuing validity of the distinction may be litigated soon.
 
Tom Berg
University of St. Thomas School of Law (MInnesota)

  _  

From: Marc Stern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 7/25/2006 9:01 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: The Roberts Court



I would add that an early Establishment Clause challenge to RLUIPA's 
land use provisions seems likely, as does  renewed litigation about 
charitable choice-i.e., the Iowa prison litigation. Perhaps too the 
Court will look at the growing split about the ministerial exception to 
Title VII. 
Marc Stern 

-Original Message- 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene 
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:45 AM 
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
Subject: RE: The Roberts Court 

I'd think that the government religious speech cases might be coming 
back, because the last attempted resolution (in the Ten Commandments 
cases) is likely to prove quite unadministrable, and because there's a 
decent chance that now there are five votes to jettison the endorsement 
test. 
  
Eugene 


 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ] On Behalf Of Tepker, Rick 
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:38 AM 
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 
Subject: The Roberts Court 


What issues concerning the First Amendment's religion 
clauses are likely to be the earliest to come before the Roberts Court? 
I'd appreciate any predictions or guesses from the list. 

___ 
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: The Roberts Court

[Hamilton02]

Not that I would not welcome it, but I would be surprised to see one of the 
RLUIPA land use cases come before the Court this Term unless the issue is 
the standard under "substantial burden."  There has been far more activity 
on that issue than the constitutional issues in the courts of appeals.
 
Marci
 
 
 
Marci A. Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Yeshiva University
 
 
In a message dated 7/25/2006 9:58:40 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would 
  add that an early Establishment Clause challenge to RLUIPA'sland use 
  provisions seems likely, as does  renewed litigation aboutcharitable 
  choice-i.e., the Iowa prison litigation. Perhaps too theCourt will look at 
  the growing split about the ministerial exception toTitle VII.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.

Re: The Roberts Court

[Ed Brayton]

Volokh, Eugene wrote:


   I'd think that the government religious speech cases might be coming
back, because the last attempted resolution (in the Ten Commandments
cases) is likely to prove quite unadministrable, and because there's a
decent chance that now there are five votes to jettison the endorsement
test.

I would agree with that. I would also add the various equal 
access/generally applicable benefits/religious discrimination cases 
going on in the Federal courts. You've got the Boy Scouts case in the 
7th circuit (can the Federal government give a special benefit to a 
private group that discriminates on the basis of religion?), the Sea 
Scouts case from the California Supreme Court (can a local government 
withhold a generally applicable benefit from a private non-profit 
because they discriminate on the basis of religion and sexual 
orientation?), and the two CLS cases on university recognition, one in 
the 7th circuit, one in the 9th, with conflicting results (must 
universities recognize student groups that discriminate on the basis of 
religion and sexual orientation?). This is an area of church/state law 
where there is a great deal of confusion. Hopefully the Court will clear 
it up.


Ed Brayton
___
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: The Roberts Court

[Marc Stern]

I would add that an early Establishment Clause challenge to RLUIPA's
land use provisions seems likely, as does  renewed litigation about
charitable choice-i.e., the Iowa prison litigation. Perhaps too the
Court will look at the growing split about the ministerial exception to
Title VII.
Marc Stern 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:45 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: The Roberts Court

I'd think that the government religious speech cases might be coming
back, because the last attempted resolution (in the Ten Commandments
cases) is likely to prove quite unadministrable, and because there's a
decent chance that now there are five votes to jettison the endorsement
test.
 
Eugene




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tepker, Rick
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:38 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: The Roberts Court


What issues concerning the First Amendment's religion
clauses are likely to be the earliest to come before the Roberts Court?
I'd appreciate any predictions or guesses from the list.

___
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: The Roberts Court

[Volokh, Eugene]

I'd think that the government religious speech cases might be coming
back, because the last attempted resolution (in the Ten Commandments
cases) is likely to prove quite unadministrable, and because there's a
decent chance that now there are five votes to jettison the endorsement
test.
 
Eugene




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tepker, Rick
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:38 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: The Roberts Court


What issues concerning the First Amendment's religion
clauses are likely to be the earliest to come before the Roberts Court?
I'd appreciate any predictions or guesses from the list.

___
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.

The Roberts Court

[Tepker, Rick]

Title: Scholarship advocating conservative judicial activism



What issues concerning the First Amendment's religion clauses are likely to be the earliest to come before the Roberts Court?  I'd appreciate any predictions or guesses from the list.___
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.