The Standing Rock case is only of several religious liberty cases that are 
likely to arise where, as Doug says “the political valences are reversed.” 
Obviously, there are already questions regarding the religious liberty and 
equality rights of Muslims. Also, it isn’t going to be too long before 
religious individuals and institutions demand exemptions from any government 
duty that makes them complicit with the government’s deportation policies or 
immigration restrictions because they are obligated by religious conscience to 
love the stranger because they know what it was like to be a stranger in a 
strange land.

Alan Brownstein

From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Laycock, H Douglas 
(hdl5c)
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 11:28 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Standing Rock

The Standing Rock Sioux’s RFRA request for a TRO is here:

https://embed.contagiousmedia.com/embed/sub/item-ol3xgp-38nio?sb=10497046&cb=1486655474&rds=

They claim to own the waters of Lake Oahe, thus distinguishing unsuccessful 
religious liberty claims by tribes in Lyng, Navajo Nation, and Snoqualmie. 
Beginning at p.34, they also say that Navajo Nation and Snoqualmie (and by 
clear implication Lyng, although they don’t say that) are no longer good law. 
They are inconsistent with the passage in Hobby Lobby suggesting that the 
courts cannot inquire into the substantiality of any alleged burden on the 
exercise of religion. The Eighth Circuit was the only circuit to take those 
statements literally and at full value in the litigation culminating in Zubik, 
although this brief does not cite that case.

Does anyone expect the courts in general, or the conservative Justices in 
particular, to adhere to Hobby Lobby’s view of burden in a case like this, 
where the political valences are reversed?


Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
_______________________________________________
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.

Reply via email to