I think we probably all agree that the RLIUPA claim here should and will
fail, because of the compelling prison interest in not so selectively
rendering such a universally desired accommodation.
And for just that reason, I can't imagine any prison *voluntarily *allowing
religiously motivated
Re: Marty's post below -- wouldn't an RLUIPA-based right for some
religiously motivated prisoners to obtain conjugal visits discriminate in
the allocation of a constitutionally protected activity -- i.e., the right
of intimate association?
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 6:41 AM, Marty Lederman
I suppose that's right, Chip. The question would then become whether
there's some constitutional problem with discriminating w/r/t acces to such
intimate association on the basis of religious belief, akin to the
constitutional presumption against content-based speech regulations, which
generally
I meant to address only the free exercise and RLUIPA claims. And having
decided that this prisoner does not have such a claim, it will rarely if
ever be necessary to address the potential establishment and free exercise
claims of non-Muslims. But if the government says that you can satisfy a
Marty --
Would you agree that if conjugal visits are currently handed out on a fairly
selective/arbitrary basis, then the government's affirmative CGI/LRM defense
under RLUIPA would have to fail?
Eric
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
