As Eric Rassbach mentioned, the Bush 43 administration brought a number of
RLUIPA cases on behalf of Muslim religious groups. More broadly, the Civil
Rights Division was given a leading role in the Bush administration’s tried to
reach out to Muslim communities (and other groups mistaken for Musl
I respectfully object to the term "committed originalist," (self-promoting
articles omitted).
Kind of hoping you were being 100% saracastic.
e
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 22, 2016, at 5:26 PM, Ira Lupu
mailto:icl...@law.gwu.edu>> wrote:
No apologies necessary except for using Ira instead of C
No apologies necessary except for using Ira instead of Chip. In light of
that request, you might reflect on how the committed originalist has not
one word in Smith about the original meaning of the Free Exercise Clause.
In 1991, I asked him about this when he came to GW to give a lecture, and
he re
Chip --
I'm afraid I don't have any crystal ball on that. It is my recollection that
there were a number of mosque cases brought during the previous Republican
administration. One I know about because it was our case was the Albanian
Associated Fund mosque case in Wayne, NJ. (New Jersey seems
I think you are right, Alan. Adding to the privately imposed cost of
religious compliance (peyote now costs more) does not coerce religious
practice. I would say that is not a cognizable burden under RFRA at all, so
the size of it (costs 10x more vs, 3x more) does not matter.
But see RLUIPA land us
Sorry, Ira, was moved to ask about the deceased’s views in aid of a solicited
piece on the jurisprudential views and rhetorical moves of the deceased (not
RFRA specific views).
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Tuesd
There was no compelling interest test at the time of Reynolds, so being a
law unto yourself would be the beginning and end of the game. RFRA adds a
step to the game. And with all respect to the departed, I do not know why
we should care what Justice Scalia thought about any subject on which he
did
I have suggested to my students (Yeah, I'm still teaching one semester a year)
that RFRA as construed in Hobby Lobby pretty much leaves it to each person's
conscience to determine when they are substantially burdened by a federal law
when the law allegedly compels them to do something that their
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 3:37 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Scalia's views of RFRA?
The Scalia opinion in Smith of course did not anticipate a law like
I wonder if Eric Rassbach (and others at The Becket Fund, which has
commendably and energetically pursued RLUIPA cases on behalf of mosques and
Muslim prison inmates) expects such lawsuits, by the DOJ on behalf of those
building a mosque, to continue in the next Administration.
On Tue, Nov 22, 201
The Scalia opinion in Smith of course did not anticipate a law like RFRA;
instead, he was referencing practice-specific accommodations (like a peyote
prohibition that exempted Native American Church members who used peyote in
sacraments.)
Mary Anne, your comment has an excluded middle -- RFRA, as
But that language is Scalia explaining why he is not doing a balancing test but
rather the abdication test. Scalia clearly wanted out of religious exercise
jurisprudence and did so — he did not adopt a balancing test. I guess I
misread your original post.
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar
The quoted language comes directly from Scalia’s opinion in Smith. The full
sentence is: ”It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political
process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that
are not widely engaged in; but that unavoidable consequence of
Yes. This is the closest he came to expressing an opinion that I know about.
Going into O Centro, we all wondered if those who voted for Smith would also be
hostile to the statute. It turned out that they weren’t. I think that is a
better indicator than Hobby Lobby, because that had become a cu
During the Holt v. Hobbs oral argument, in discussing the strict scrutiny
standard in RLUIPA, Justice Scalia said the following:
"We’re talking here about a compelling State interest. *Bear in mind
I would not have enacted this statute*, but there it is. It says there has
to be a compelling State
I never read Smith that way — it was a straight up carte blanche to the
legislative and executive branches provided the law was neutral and generally
applicable — no weighing of competing interests involved.
Steve
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar
Assoc. Dir. of International Program
Thought list readers might be interested in this RLUIPA lawsuit announced by
DOJ, on behalf of a mosque in New Jersey:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-suit-against-bernards-township-new-jersey-over-denial-zoning
___
To post,
Other than his stray remarks at the Hobby Lobby oral argument (for example
noting that RFRA went beyond the pre-Smith case law in mandating not just a
compelling state interest but narrow tailoring) did Scalia ever in any venue
set forth his views on RFRA (for example expressing disappointment t
18 matches
Mail list logo