Stephen Bainbridge, speaking from the standpoint of corporate law, has an
interesting article in the current issue of The Green Bag (Vol. 16, No. 3,
Spring 2013): Using Reverse Veil Piercing to Vindicate the Free Exercise
Rights of Incorporated Employers.
(The same issue has an article by
Please forgive me for being late to the party here -- I drafted an amicus
brief on behalf of the National Congress of American Indians in this case.
Our argument was quite simple: that Alabama could restrict the right of the
prisoners to grow their hair in accordance with their religious
I am on deadline here, so can't really pursue this, but I have to say that I do
find it troubling that the fact question of penological interest is now being
decided based on what another state does. It appears to me that RLUIPA has
nationalized state prison system administration. Those
Why does RLUIPA as applied to state prisons unconstitutionally
interfere with state sovereignty? RLUIPA is a spending clause
statute; any state that objects to RLUIPA as an intrusion into its
sovereignty is free to operate its prisons without federal financial
assistance. To be sure
Chip and I are not that far apart.
I agree that both Braunfeld and Lee asserted that regulation of their
business affairs burdened their own, personal religious liberty. The
Greens make the same claim in Hobby Lobby. And thus they would surely have
standing to sue on their own behalf . . . if
