Connecticut and Alabama use "burden" instead of "substantial burden." New Mexico, Missouri, and Rhode Island don't use the burden terminology--they speak of "restrictions on religious liberty." To me, that would seem like it jettisons the requirement of burden altogether, but others may disagree. Two of the substantial burden states —Arizona and Idaho—say explicitly in their statutes that the requirement is only meant to weed out "trivial, technical, or de minimis burdens." I talk about the differences, and have a handy though dated chart, in this piece, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1666268 .
It's a mess, in other words. And I have to say, I don't know how much any of these differences matter. When I looked at state RFRA cases a few years back, I found these differences in wording didn't matter much. They are rarely even talked about. This may be an issue where academics care quite a bit, but judges do not. Judges are heavily influenced by the facts of these cases; the wording of the RFRAs, I think, is secondary. ----- Original Message ----- From: hamilto...@aol.com To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Monday, December 2, 2013 10:43:51 AM Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs The WIs bill was never passed to my knowledge, but if it went through under the radar, I would be interested. Conn did not include the term in one of the earliest bills, but the Conn Supreme Court read it in. To my knowledge, only KY passed such a bill, and only over the Governor's veto. Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University 55 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 (212) 790-0215 http://sol-reform.com -----Original Message----- From: Saperstein, David <dsaperst...@rac.org> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Cc: religionlaw <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Sent: Mon, Dec 2, 2013 10:39 am Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs Just FY (forgive me if I missed an earlier reference)....I believe there is such a bill in Wisconsin as well ? Sent from my iPhone On Dec 2, 2013, at 10:18 AM, " hamilto...@aol.com " < hamilto...@aol.com > wrote: Thanks, Doug. The letter in support of the new TRFRA amendment bill, which would have omitted "substantial" as a modifier, does not mention the removal of "substantial," but is in support of the bill. If there is anyone who signed it who opposes removal of "substantial," please let me know. Otherwise, I will assume all signatories have endorsed the removal of "substantial" as a modifier for "burden." No need to respond if you support the bill as worded. Thanks all Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University 55 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 (212) 790-0215 http://sol-reform.com -----Original Message----- From: Douglas Laycock < dlayc...@virginia.edu > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics < religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >; hamilton02 < hamilto...@aol.com > Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 11:37 am Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs The presence or absence of the word "substantial" was briefly addressed in a follow-up letter here: http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/faculty/laycock/texasreligfreedamdt2013senate2corrected.pdf I defended the word's omission. I also suggested that the Committee add it if they thought it mattered. My apologies for the delay. There was an initial miscommunication with our tech people, and by the time they got this posted, I was caught up in Town of Greece and completely forgot to go back to this. On Sun, 1 Dec 2013 11:00:33 -0500 (EST) hamilto...@aol.com wrote: >Thanks Marty! > > >Marci A. Hamilton >Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law >Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law >Yeshiva University >55 Fifth Avenue >New York, NY 10003 >(212) 790-0215 > http://sol-reform.com > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Marty Lederman < lederman.ma...@gmail.com > >To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics < religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > >Sent: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 9:44 am >Subject: Re: Letter of 16 law professors in support of removing "substantial" as modifier of "burden" in state RFRAs > > >I assume this is the letter, although it does not specifically address the removal of "substantial": > > http://txvalues.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Professor-Support-Texas-Religious-Freedom-Amedment-Senate-version.pdf > > > > > >On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 9:03 AM, < hamilto...@aol.com > wrote: > >When a new TRFRA was introduced in Texas earlier this year, I was told that there was a letter submitted signed by approximately 16 law professors >who supported the removal of "substantial" from the typical RFRA analysis. Doug had said on this list that he would send it to me several months ago, but >I have never received it. I assume several on this list signed it. Could someone please forward it to me? It is, essentially, a public document, having been distributed >to Texas legislators. > > >KY actually did pass such a law so I assume this is a new trend. I am >hearing from many civil rights groups who are deeply concerned about such a law, and I would like >to explain to them the reasoning behing making a de minimis burden the trigger for strict scrutiny. > > >Thanks-- Marci > > >Marci A. Hamilton >Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law >Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law >Yeshiva University >55 Fifth Avenue >New York, NY 10003 >(212) 790-0215 > http://sol-reform.com > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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. > > Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 <blockquote> _______________________________________________ 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. </blockquote> _______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
