RE: Breaking news in federal RFRA case

[Friedman, Howard M.]

For anyone interested, I have a blog post up on O Centro giving my preliminary thoughts on the case:  http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2006/02/preliminary-thoughts-on-todays-o.html  (It also links to an earlier posting merely describing the holding.)   ************************************* Howard M. Friedman Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus University of Toledo College of Law Toledo, OH 43606-3390 Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ************************************* From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 11:33 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Breaking news in federal RFRA case   On the contrary:  The Court comes right out and says to the government:  "See, we told you this would happen -- that's why we decided Smith the way we did.  But you had to go ahead and pass RFRA anyway, so here's what you get . . . "   Well, this is how the Chief puts it, but I think the "You made your bed . . . " subtext is manifest: We have no cause to pretend that the task assigned by Congress to the courts under RFRA is an easy one. Indeed, the very sort of difficulties highlighted by the Government here were cited by this Court in deciding that the approach later mandated by Congress under RFRA was not required as a matter of constitutional law under the Free Exercise Clause. See Smith, 494 U. S., at 885,890. But Congress has determined that courts should strike sensible balances, pursuant to a compelling interest test that requires the Government to address the particular practice at issue. ----- Original Message ----- From: Brad M Pardee To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 11:25 AM Subject: Re: Breaking news in federal RFRA case   Does this decision affect Employment Division Vs. Smith?  The quote below makes it sound like it is revisiting the same issue.  One can only hope! Brad Mark Tushnet wrote on 02/21/2006 09:12:53 AM: > "the Court ruled unanimously that the government may not ban a religious > from using a herbal tea that contains a substance that the government > considers to be harmful. The Chief Justice wrote the opinion. Only new > Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., did not take part." -- from SCOTUS Blog _______________________________________________ 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.

_______________________________________________
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.