Re: Nullifying RLUIPA
I think Turner requires satisfying some religious dietary requests, and I think RLUIPA as interpreted by the Court in Cutter requires no more than Turner. The opinion makes it clear that problems between inmates, budget, and security are all important reasons a prison can turn down any request under RLUIPA. On a prison-by-prison basis, there will be a wide variety of programs.One of the best aspects of the Turner/RLUIPA standard is that itgives latitude for experimentationstate-by-state, which means prison systems can watch each other to see what works best fromall of the policy criteria they must take into account. Marci In a message dated 6/4/2005 2:49:29 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Marci, Do you concede that RLUIPA may require a prison to satisfy at least some religious dietary requests? If so, which ones and what criteria under the statute should be used to make the distinction? (Lets assume were talking about sincerely held requests). ___ 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: Nullifying RLUIPA
the Turner/RLUIPA standard! George Orwell would be impressed. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sun 6/5/2005 7:09 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Nullifying RLUIPA I think Turner requires satisfying some religious dietary requests, and I think RLUIPA as interpreted by the Court in Cutter requires no more than Turner. The opinion makes it clear that problems between inmates, budget, and security are all important reasons a prison can turn down any request under RLUIPA. On a prison-by-prison basis, there will be a wide variety of programs. One of the best aspects of the Turner/RLUIPA standard is that it gives latitude for experimentation state-by-state, which means prison systems can watch each other to see what works best from all of the policy criteria they must take into account. Marci In a message dated 6/4/2005 2:49:29 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Marci, Do you concede that RLUIPA may require a prison to satisfy at least some religious dietary requests? If so, which ones and what criteria under the statute should be used to make the distinction? (Let's assume we're talking about sincerely held requests). winmail.dat___ 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: Nullifying RLUIPA
With all due respect, Doug, the degree to which the Court requires deference in Cutter pushes RLUIPA a far distance from strict scrutiny as it is used in constitutional law, as the list has discussed. The result is intermediate scrutiny. The phrase "compelling interest" generally means one thing for the Court when it crafts standards of constitutional review, but as a matter of statutory construction with RLUIPA, it means something quite different. Mapping RLUIPA onto Turner is not a stretch at all -- despite the differences if both were constitutional standards of review. Marci In a message dated 6/5/2005 2:13:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "the Turner/RLUIPA standard"! George Orwell would be impressed. ___ 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: Nullifying RLUIPA
Just how the RLUIPA standard gets implemented remains to be seen, but suppose it means intermediate scrutiny, as Marci now suggests. That's still a long ways from reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest. If RLUIPA enacted the Turner standard, it would accomplish exactly nothing, which is why this thread is headed Nullifying RLUIPA. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sun 6/5/2005 2:24 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Nullifying RLUIPA With all due respect, Doug, the degree to which the Court requires deference in Cutter pushes RLUIPA a far distance from strict scrutiny as it is used in constitutional law, as the list has discussed. The result is intermediate scrutiny. The phrase compelling interest generally means one thing for the Court when it crafts standards of constitutional review, but as a matter of statutory construction with RLUIPA, it means something quite different. Mapping RLUIPA onto Turner is not a stretch at all -- despite the differences if both were constitutional standards of review. Marci In a message dated 6/5/2005 2:13:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the Turner/RLUIPA standard! George Orwell would be impressed. winmail.dat___ 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: Nullifying RLUIPA
Therein lies the irony of Cutter. Marci In a message dated 6/5/2005 4:32:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If RLUIPA enacted the Turner standard, it would accomplish exactly nothing, which is why this thread is headed "Nullifying RLUIPA." ___ 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: Nullifying RLUIPA
There is no irony, only astonishingly aggressive spin and self-contradiction. --Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu ReplyTo: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Jun 5, 2005 4:39 PM Subject: Re: Nullifying RLUIPA Therein lies the irony of Cutter. Marci In a message dated 6/5/2005 4:32:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If RLUIPA enacted the Turner standard, it would accomplish exactly nothing, which is why this thread is headed Nullifying RLUIPA. Anthony R. Picarello, Jr. President General Counsel The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty 1350 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 605 Washington, DC 20036-1735 Phone: (202) 349-7203 Fax: (202) 955-0090 ___ 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: Nullifying RLUIPA
The matter came up during the floor debates and then-Senator Danforth, who is an Epicopalian priest expressed outrage that inmates were denied communion wine. I cant remember which side on the question acted, but the question had something to do with whether prisoners could be subjected to a tougher test on matters of this sort, a vote was taken and the Danforth view prevailed. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 6:09 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Nullifying RLUIPA I'm always learning something new. The Senate voted separately on communion wine in the context of debating RFRA? I thought I had read it all, but maybe not. Marci In a message dated 6/2/2005 4:55:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If there is any one dietary demand that cannot be refused, communion wine is it. The issue came up in the Senate debates on RFRA and by a thumping two-to-one vote, the Senate agreed with me. If one looks at the question in historical context, the case against denying communion wine is overwhelming. ___ 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: Nullifying RLUIPA
The animating question was that prisoners filefrivolous lawsuits on every possible issue. Many examples were discussed, but no single example was the animating question. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom MichaelSent: Friday, June 03, 2005 9:52 AMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Nullifying RLUIPA Thats wrong. Communion wine was the animating question. Form cant trump substance. -Original Message-From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 6:25 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Nullifying RLUIPA I think he is referring to the vote on the Reid Amendment, to exclude prisons from RFRA. That went down decisively but far from unanimously; 2:1 is a reasonable estimate.There might have been some discussion of communion wine; supporters of RFRA were pointing to an unreported Colorado case where a guy on work release was let out to attend church but forbidden to take communion. But I am as certain as it is possible to be 12 years after an event that there was no vote on communion wine. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 5:09 PMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: Nullifying RLUIPA I'm always learning something new. The Senate voted separately on communion wine in the context of debating RFRA? I thought I had read it all, but maybe not. Marci In a message dated 6/2/2005 4:55:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If there is any one dietary demand that cannot be refused, communion wine is it. The issue came up in the Senate debates on RFRA and by a thumping two-to-one vote, the Senate agreed with me. If one looks at the question in historical context, the case against denying communion wine is overwhelming. ___ 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: Nullifying RLUIPA
We read the materials differently. I think that there was a clear emphasis on the communion wine question. -Original Message- From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 11:00 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Nullifying RLUIPA The animating question was that prisoners filefrivolous lawsuits on every possible issue. Many examples were discussed, but no single example was the animating question. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom Michael Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 9:52 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Nullifying RLUIPA Thats wrong. Communion wine was the animating question. Form cant trump substance. -Original Message- From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 6:25 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Nullifying RLUIPA I think he is referring to the vote on the Reid Amendment, to exclude prisons from RFRA. That went down decisively but far from unanimously; 2:1 is a reasonable estimate.There might have been some discussion of communion wine; supporters of RFRA were pointing to an unreported Colorado case where a guy on work release was let out to attend church but forbidden to take communion. But I am as certain as it is possible to be 12 years after an event that there was no vote on communion wine. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 5:09 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Nullifying RLUIPA I'm always learning something new. The Senate voted separately on communion wine in the context of debating RFRA? I thought I had read it all, but maybe not. Marci In a message dated 6/2/2005 4:55:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If there is any one dietary demand that cannot be refused, communion wine is it. The issue came up in the Senate debates on RFRA and by a thumping two-to-one vote, the Senate agreed with me. If one looks at the question in historical context, the case against denying communion wine is overwhelming. ___ 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: Nullifying RLUIPA
Of course communion wine should be protected by RLUIPA. Seder wine too. Getting tipsy for Purim probably comes out the other way; quantities are going tomatter. I think the only disagreement here was historical -- what did Congress vote on when it rejected the Reid Amendment to RFRA? Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty LedermanSent: Friday, June 03, 2005 10:12 AMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Nullifying RLUIPA Doug is correct that many different hypos, and actual denials of accommodations,were invoked. The communion-wine hypo (and one apparent instance of denial of communion wine in a Colorado prison) was mentioned by, e.g., Senators Hatch (139 CR S14363, S14368), Lieberman (S14462), Hatfield (S14466) and Danforth (S14466-14467). This was all in the context of the Reid Amendment on prisons. Is it really so controversial that prisons should be "required" (as a condition on the receipt of federal funds)to allow religious prisoners to sip small amounts of wine during religious rituals? - Original Message - From: Douglas Laycock To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 10:59 AM Subject: RE: Nullifying RLUIPA The animating question was that prisoners filefrivolous lawsuits on every possible issue. Many examples were discussed, but no single example was the animating question. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom MichaelSent: Friday, June 03, 2005 9:52 AMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Nullifying RLUIPA Thats wrong. Communion wine was the animating question. Form cant trump substance. -Original Message-From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 6:25 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Nullifying RLUIPA I think he is referring to the vote on the Reid Amendment, to exclude prisons from RFRA. That went down decisively but far from unanimously; 2:1 is a reasonable estimate.There might have been some discussion of communion wine; supporters of RFRA were pointing to an unreported Colorado case where a guy on work release was let out to attend church but forbidden to take communion. But I am as certain as it is possible to be 12 years after an event that there was no vote on communion wine. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 5:09 PMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: Nullifying RLUIPA I'm always learning something new. The Senate voted separately on communion wine in the context of debating RFRA? I thought I had read it all, but maybe not. Marci In a message dated 6/2/2005 4:55:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If there is any one dietary demand that cannot be refused, communion wine is it. The issue came up in the Senate debates on RFRA and by a thumping two-to-one vote, the Senate agreed with me. If one looks at the question in historical context, the case against denying communion wine is overwhelming. ___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: Nullifying RLUIPA
There is always a dangerthat judges will limit religious liberty on the basis ofanalogies to familiar mainstream practices. I believe that i was not implicitly relying on such an analogy. I was talking only about prisoners, andpredicting that courts would find a compelling interest in not letting prisoners get drunk. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark GraberSent: Friday, June 03, 2005 11:12 AMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: RE: Nullifying RLUIPA Question. In the mainstream branches of Christianity, is there any holiday where persons have a religious obligation to get drunk. I'm fairly, though not 100% confident that many Jews believe there is a religious obligation to drink to excess on Purim. Assume I am right, might one infer the following. Religious practices such as Seder Wine will merit protection to the extent they have analogies to Christian practices (communion wine). To the extent they are different, they are unlikely to be protected. I should emphasize, that I do not think Doug was making this claim, but am worried that this might be a possible outcome. Mark A. Graber [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/03/05 12:04PM Of course communion wine should be protected by RLUIPA. Seder wine too. Getting tipsy for Purim probably comes out the other way; quantities are going tomatter. I think the only disagreement here was historical -- what did Congress vote on when it rejected the Reid Amendment to RFRA? Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty LedermanSent: Friday, June 03, 2005 10:12 AMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Nullifying RLUIPA Doug is correct that many different hypos, and actual denials of accommodations,were invoked. The communion-wine hypo (and one apparent instance of denial of communion wine in a Colorado prison) was mentioned by, e.g., Senators Hatch (139 CR S14363, S14368), Lieberman (S14462), Hatfield (S14466) and Danforth (S14466-14467). This was all in the context of the Reid Amendment on prisons. Is it really so controversial that prisons should be "required" (as a condition on the receipt of federal funds)to allow religious prisoners to sip small amounts of wine during religious rituals? - Original Message - From: Douglas Laycock To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 10:59 AM Subject: RE: Nullifying RLUIPA The animating question was that prisoners filefrivolous lawsuits on every possible issue. Many examples were discussed, but no single example was the animating question. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom MichaelSent: Friday, June 03, 2005 9:52 AMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Nullifying RLUIPA Thats wrong. Communion wine was the animating question. Form cant trump substance. -Original Message-From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 6:25 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Nullifying RLUIPA I think he is referring to the vote on the Reid Amendment, to exclude prisons from RFRA. That went down decisively but far from unanimously; 2:1 is a reasonable estimate.There might have been some discussion of communion wine; supporters of RFRA were pointing to an unreported Colorado case where a guy on work release was let out to attend church but forbidden to take communion. But I am as certain as it is possible to be 12 years after an event that there was no vote on communion wine. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 5:09 PMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: Nullifying RLUIPA I'm always learning something new. The Senate voted separately on communion wine in the context of debating RFRA? I thought I had read it all, but maybe not. Marci In a message dated 6/2/2005 4:55:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If there is any one dietary demand that cannot be refused, communion wine is it. The issue came up in the Senate debates on RFRA and by a thumping two-to-one vote, the Senate agreed with me. If
RE: Nullifying RLUIPA
At 12:11 PM 6/3/05 -0400, you wrote: Question. In the mainstream branches of Christianity, is there any holiday where persons have a religious obligation to get drunk. I'm fairly, though not 100% confident that many Jews believe there is a religious obligation to drink to excess on Purim. There is a genre of spoof Purim Haggadahs, which include the injunction to drink until you can not tell BARUCH MORDECHAI from ARUR HAMAN. This is more of an inside joke. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.0 - Release Date: 6/3/05 ___ 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: Nullifying RLUIPA
If there is any one dietary demand that cannot be refused, communion wine is it. The issue came up in the Senate debates on RFRA and by a thumping two-to-one vote, the Senate agreed with me. If one looks at the question in historical context, the case against denying communion wine is overwhelming. -Original Message- From: Jamar Steve Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 5:22 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Nullifying RLUIPA I do think an inmate's dietary demands based on religion could be denied. I just can't imagine a situation where they would indeed need to be -- where the religious dietary demands are such that compliance is much of burden. It is not a burden to serve beans as well as beef; chicken as well as pork. One dietary demand that could be refused: wine in communion, I should think -- if all alcohol is banned. Steve On Jun 1, 2005, at 5:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm just curious if anyone in the ivory tower believes that an inmate's dietary demands, based on religion, can ever be denied under RLUIPA? (And set aside the games-playing CONS and their steak and sherry-- I am talking about sincere religious believers making a variety of dietary demands.) So far, it doesn't sound like it. Marci -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. Martin Luther King, Jr., (1964, on accepting the Nobel Peace Prize) ___ 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: Nullifying RLUIPA
I'm always learning something new. The Senate voted separately on communion wine in the context of debating RFRA? I thought I had read it all, but maybe not. Marci In a message dated 6/2/2005 4:55:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If there is any one dietary demand that cannot be refused, communion wine is it. The issue came up in the Senate debates on RFRA and by a thumping two-to-one vote, the Senate agreed with me. If one looks at the question in historical context, the case against denying communion wine is overwhelming. ___ 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: Nullifying RLUIPA
I think he is referring to the vote on the Reid Amendment, to exclude prisons from RFRA. That went down decisively but far from unanimously; 2:1 is a reasonable estimate.There might have been some discussion of communion wine; supporters of RFRA were pointing to an unreported Colorado case where a guy on work release was let out to attend church but forbidden to take communion. But I am as certain as it is possible to be 12 years after an event that there was no vote on communion wine. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 5:09 PMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: Nullifying RLUIPA I'm always learning something new. The Senate voted separately on communion wine in the context of debating RFRA? I thought I had read it all, but maybe not. Marci In a message dated 6/2/2005 4:55:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If there is any one dietary demand that cannot be refused, communion wine is it. The issue came up in the Senate debates on RFRA and by a thumping two-to-one vote, the Senate agreed with me. If one looks at the question in historical context, the case against denying communion wine is overwhelming. ___ 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: Nullifying RLUIPA
In addition to what Doug has written, I would note that many prisons have a common fare diet which satisfies the dietary restrictions of many faiths. That their might be some dietary claims that could not be met-the legendary steak and sherry claims of the church of the new song in the Theriault case- hardly means that most claims cannot be satisfied. Of course, I suppose one could tale the position that if everyone cannot be accommodated, no on should be, but that is not a sensible rule of law even if Justice Stevens came close to adopting it in his Goldman v. Weinberger concurrence. Marc Stern From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 2:28 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Nullifying RLUIPA In response to Marci's query whethere there is some limit on what prisons must do, of course there is. No one says the prisoners win every case; that is herstraw man. Some diet claims are insincere; some demand that the religious requirements be met in a different way, although the prison has already met them; some may be too expensive, although I want the court to seriously look at the evidence on that. The right to kosher and halel food is so sensible that it has largely survived the lack of any doctrinal basis afterTurner and Smith. RLUIPA grounds those claims again, and of course it reaches some of them.Some prisons insisted onpouring pork drippings over everything until they got sued; objecting to that is a dietary claim that Marciwould apparently reject. Claiming that RLUIPA does not require the prison to pay for any dietary request makes sense only if one intendsto nullify the Act by interpretation now that the Court has refused to nullify it on a constitutional challenge. Doug Are you taking the position that RLUIPA places a burden on every prison to accommodate every religious diet request? I don't see howRLUIPA creates a requirement that the prison pay for any dietary request. There are literally hundreds of diet variations amongthe many religions. No prison can cover them all, andthere has to be some limit to what prisonsmust do, right? Marci In a message dated 6/1/2005 10:47:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The rules of construction in the text of the statute actually address this issue. They say that the act neither creates nor precludes a right to have the state fund a religious organization or pay for a religious activity, but the state does have to pay the costs of removing substantial burdens on religious activity. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 512-471-6988 (fax) ___ 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: Nullifying RLUIPA
My observation was not intended to raise a straw man and is quite sincere.Where is the limit for the prisons under RLUIPA when it comes to diet? Here's the problem -- in this day and age, a prison could easily have a mix of Buddhists, Hindus, Orthodox Jews, Nation of Islam members, and Rastafarians. Different Buddhistsobserve different vegetarian requirements, Hindus eat no meat or eggs, Orthodox Jews require kosher, the Nation of Islam observes a "biblically derived diet" which included some breads, some fruits and a long list of prohibitions like cornbread and seafood, while Rastafarians eat an I-tal diet, which consists of fresh, unprocessed fruit, vegetables, fish, juices and grains. It is a given that the state must provide a nutritious (even if not always delightful) menu. Given that the Court has given prison authorities great deference and seems to say that only "exceptional" burdens must be accommodated, where is the line now drawn? This is a legal question, not a political question. Marci In a message dated 6/1/2005 2:29:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In response to Marci's query whethere there is some limit on what prisons must do, of course there is. No one says the prisoners win every case; that is herstraw man. Some diet claims are insincere; some demand that the religious requirements be met in a different way, although the prison has already met them; some may be too expensive, although I want the court to seriously look at the evidence on that. The right to kosher and halel food is so sensible that it has largely survived the lack of any doctrinal basis afterTurner and Smith. RLUIPA grounds those claims again, and of course it reaches some of them.Some prisons insisted onpouring pork drippings over everything until they got sued; objecting to that is a dietary claim that Marciwould apparently reject. Claiming that RLUIPA does not require the prison to "pay for any dietary request" makes sense only if one intendsto nullify the Act by "interpretation" now that the Court has refused to nullify it on a constitutional challenge. Doug ___ 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: Nullifying RLUIPA
I'm just curious if anyone in the ivory tower believes that an inmate's dietary demands, based on religion, can ever be denied under RLUIPA? (And set aside the games-playing CONS and their steak and sherry-- I am talking about sincere religious believers making a variety of dietary demands.) So far, it doesn't sound like it. Marci In a message dated 6/1/2005 5:08:52 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It may be a legal question, but the answer is not necessarily to draw a line somewhere. The problem has to be managed, and I suspect that standards and balancing tests, rather than bright-line rules are likely to be the sum and substance of the answer. You wouldnt say that a functionalist approach is political, but not legal, would you? ___ 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: Nullifying RLUIPA
It may be a legal question, but the answer is not necessarily to draw a line somewhere. The problem has to be managed, and I suspect that standards and balancing tests, rather than bright-line rules are likely to be the sum and substance of the answer. You wouldnt say that a functionalist approach is political, but not legal, would you? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 4:36 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Nullifying RLUIPA My observation was not intended to raise a straw man and is quite sincere.Where is the limit for the prisons under RLUIPA when it comes to diet? Here's the problem -- in this day and age, a prison could easily have a mix of Buddhists, Hindus, Orthodox Jews, Nation of Islam members, and Rastafarians. Different Buddhistsobserve different vegetarian requirements, Hindus eat no meat or eggs, Orthodox Jews require kosher, the Nation of Islam observes a biblically derived diet which included some breads, some fruits and a long list of prohibitions like cornbread and seafood, while Rastafarians eat an I-tal diet, which consists of fresh, unprocessed fruit, vegetables, fish, juices and grains. It is a given that the state must provide a nutritious (even if not always delightful) menu. Given that the Court has given prison authorities great deference and seems to say that only exceptional burdens must be accommodated, where is the line now drawn? This is a legal question, not a political question. Marci In a message dated 6/1/2005 2:29:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In response to Marci's query whethere there is some limit on what prisons must do, of course there is. No one says the prisoners win every case; that is herstraw man. Some diet claims are insincere; some demand that the religious requirements be met in a different way, although the prison has already met them; some may be too expensive, although I want the court to seriously look at the evidence on that. The right to kosher and halel food is so sensible that it has largely survived the lack of any doctrinal basis afterTurner and Smith. RLUIPA grounds those claims again, and of course it reaches some of them.Some prisons insisted onpouring pork drippings over everything until they got sued; objecting to that is a dietary claim that Marciwould apparently reject. Claiming that RLUIPA does not require the prison to pay for any dietary request makes sense only if one intendsto nullify the Act by interpretation now that the Court has refused to nullify it on a constitutional challenge. Doug ___ 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: Nullifying RLUIPA
But see Levitan v. Ashcroft, 281 F.3d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (finding issue of material factin claim thatdenial of wine during communion was substantial burden on religion). From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven JamarSent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 5:22 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Nullifying RLUIPA I do think an inmate's dietary demands based on religion could be denied. I just can't imagine a situation where they would indeed need to be -- where the religious dietary demands are such that compliance is much of burden. It is not a burden to serve beans as well as beef; chicken as well as pork. One dietary demand that could be refused: wine in communion, I should think -- if all alcohol is banned. Steve On Jun 1, 2005, at 5:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm just curious if anyone in the ivory tower believes that an inmate's dietary demands, based on religion, can ever be denied under RLUIPA? (And set aside the games-playing CONS and their steak and sherry-- I am talking about sincere religious believers making a variety of dietary demands.) So far, it doesn't sound like it. Marci -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar "I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits." Martin Luther King, Jr., (1964, on accepting the Nobel Peace Prize) This electronic message transmission contains information from this law firm which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by telephone (+1-202-637-5600) or by electronic mail ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) immediately. ___ 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.
