Are you taking the position that RLUIPA places a burden on every prison to
accommodate every religious diet request? I don't see how RLUIPA
creates a requirement that the prison pay for any dietary request. There
are literally hundreds of diet variations among the many
religions. No pri
-232-1341
512-471-6988 (fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Marc Stern
Sent: Wed 6/1/2005 8:30 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: RLUIPA Unanimously Upheld in Cutter
Footnote 8 in Justice Ginsburg's opinion suggests that
I have had some experience with this issue in two locations which had
accepted a "reasonable accommodation" model [now probably "exceedingly
burdensome"]. I believe this was referring to special clothing,
devotional objects, and the like. This was [and maybe still is] a
major issue as to min
My guesses:On Jun 1, 2005, at 9:30 AM, Marc Stern wrote: Footnote 8 in Justice Ginsburg’s opinion suggests that the state has no obligation to pay for an”inmate’s devotional accessories.” What does this sentence-which involved no issue litigated in Cutter mean for the cost of chaplains (especia
gion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: RLUIPA Unanimously
Upheld in Cutter
Dear all,
Picking up on Steven Lamar's mentioning of the AALS, I thought I'd jump in and
mention that the AALS's Law and Religion Section has planned and put together
two different programs for January&
M
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: RLUIPA Unanimously Upheld in Cutter
Time for another AALS panel writing the obit for Lemon? :)
Steve
On May 31, 2005, at 12:12 PM, Stuart BUCK wrote:
So has the Lemon test been interred, or not? Compare footnote 6 of
the majority (&quo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 12:59
PMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: RLUIPA
Unanimously Upheld in Cutter
Marty-- I would not characterize RLUIPA as reflecting the Sherbert
standard. The Court was quite clear in Smith that
ROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 12:59
PMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: RLUIPA
Unanimously Upheld in Cutter
Marty-- I would not characterize RLUIPA as reflecting the Sherbert
standard. The Court was quite clear in Smith that Sherbert strict s
essage -
From:
Anthony Picarello
To: Law & Religion issues for Law
Academics
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 2:08 PM
Subject: RE: RLUIPA Unanimously Upheld in
Cutter
I agree that the true test on
the meaning of strict scrutiny under RLUIPA or RFRA will come with the UDV
c
TED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty
LedermanSent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 11:47 AMTo: Law &
Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: RLUIPA Unanimously
Upheld in Cutter
Well, this has been the paradox in Free Exercise
Clause law all along, hasn't it?: That the Court artic
Marty-- I would not characterize RLUIPA as reflecting the Sherbert
standard. The Court was quite clear in Smith that Sherbert strict scrutiny
is triggered when the government treats secular reasons more favorably than it
does religious reasons. That is not an issue here. The standard, if
My SCOTUSblog post on the decision. I welcome
suggestions -- and encourage responses in the "Comments" section of
the blog.
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/05/cutter_v_wilkin.html
Cutter
v. Wilkinson
11:54 AM | Marty Lederman | Comments
(0) | TrackBack
(0)
In Cut
usly
Upheld in Cutter
Time for another AALS panel writing the obit for Lemon? :)
Steve
On May 31, 2005, at 12:12 PM, Stuart BUCK wrote:
So has the Lemon test been interred, or not? Compare footnote 6 of the majority
("We resolve this case on other grounds."), with Thomas'
Indeed, I recall reading
that Thurgood Marshall used the Korematsu test in oral argument, and I
also seem to recall that strict scrutiny was used in Marshall's
brief. If that's so, it's even more astounding that Chief Justice Warren
did not include such an analysis in his opinion.
Time for another AALS panel writing the obit for Lemon? :)SteveOn May 31, 2005, at 12:12 PM, Stuart BUCK wrote:So has the Lemon test been interred, or not? Compare footnote 6 of the majority ("We resolve this case on other grounds."), with Thomas's footnote 1 ("The Court properly declines to asse
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: RLUIPA Unanimously Upheld in Cutter
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 11:55:37 EDT
Actually, what is most striking is that the Court reads RLUIPA as requiring
deference to priso
ppeared to have a
different view in Boerne.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 11:56
AMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: RLUIPA
Unanimously Upheld in Cutter
Actually, what is most striking is that the Court re
On Tue, 31 May 2005, Steven Jamar wrote:
> As a bit of an aside, perhaps, the "compelling interest" standard of
> Korematsu, or as Bobby appropriately labeled it, "compelling interest
> with deference," is the standard we use rather than anything directly
> from Brown v. Board. Brown v. Board cha
Only if one reads the statute literally and not contextually. "Least restrictive" has not consistently meant de-contextualized least restrictive. The compelingness of the government's interest, the burdens of the alternatives, and the particular context have all played their parts in the applicat
This very paradox -- and the problems of the limits of logic and language in the law -- was the main impetus for an article I wrote some years back about how RFRA could not be interpreted or applied in a literal way. Instead, there is an inherent sliding scale of compellingness of the interest the
Actually, what is most striking is that the Court reads RLUIPA as requiring
deference to prison officials despite the least restrictive means
requirement. The latter does seem to be read out of the
statute.
Marci
___
To post, send message to R
asca tea.
- Original Message -
From:
Mark
Graber
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 11:20
AM
Subject: Re: RLUIPA Unanimously Upheld in
Cutter
One might also
note we now have another area of law (in addition to affirmative action) where
As a bit of an aside, perhaps, the "compelling interest" standard of Korematsu, or as Bobby appropriately labeled it, "compelling interest with deference," is the standard we use rather than anything directly from Brown v. Board. Brown v. Board changed the country and indeed the law, but it genera
nces in Lopez and Sabri, which no other Justice
joined.
- Original Message -
From:
Marty Lederman
To: Law & Religion issues for Law
Academics
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 10:57
AM
Subject: Re: RLUIPA Unanimously Upheld in
Cutter
The RBG opinion
Agreed. But on my reading of
Korematsu, Black seems to be saying "even though we decide for the government in
this case, the vast/overwhelming majority of discriminations are likely to be
declared unconstitutional." Is it a fair reading of Ginsburg to think that
her opinion says, "even tho
The funny thing about
"compelling interest with deference" is that it has been present since at
least Korematsu.
Bobby
In a message dated 5/31/2005 11:21:55 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One might also note we now have
another area of law (in addit
One might also note
we now have another area of law (in addition to affirmative action) where
compelling interest seems no longer shorthand for the individual rights claim
(almost) always wins.
MAG
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/31/05 11:16AM
>>>
What a fascinating opinion. J. Ginsburg uphold
What a fascinating opinion. J. Ginsburg upholds strict scrutiny with
respect to prison regulations, but at the same time demands deference to prison
authorities, as does RLUIPA. At the very end, she seems to caution
all lower courts to be very careful before they find for the
prisoner.
y 31, 2005 10:35
AM
Subject: Re: RLUIPA Unanimously Upheld in
Cutter
Justice Ginsburg wrote the opinion. There's
a separate Thomas concurrence.
More to follow.
- Original Message -
From:
Marty Lederman
To: Law & Religion issues for Law
Justice Ginsburg wrote the opinion. There's a
separate Thomas concurrence.
More to follow.
- Original Message -
From:
Marty Lederman
To: Law & Religion issues for Law
Academics
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 10:05
AM
Subject: RLUIPA Unanimously Upheld in
Details to follow.
___
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 ca
31 matches
Mail list logo
