sues for Law Academics
<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Subject: Re: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?
I am once again reminded why I refuse to teach the 11th Amendment :-). But of
course you are all correct, I had forgotten about that line of cases.
As
sts on its not being a 5=4 decision.
sandy
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ashutosh A Bhagwat
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 5:36 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: I
cademics
Subject: RE: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?
Doh! Not sure why I forgot about Edelman; maybe because the focus there was on
the line between prospective and retrospective relief. But that is the
fundamental modern Eleventh Amendment case, and it squarely holds that § 1983
does not ov
, 2017 5:53 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?
See, e.g., Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 340-41 (1979):
"Mr. Justice BRENNAN in his opinion concurring in the judgment argues that our
hol
Segall
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 5:45 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?
There's also language in other cases involving federal jurisdiction that
Congress didn't intend 1983 to abrogate immunity. Wi
>
> Charlottesville, VA 22903
>
> 434-243-8546 <(434)%20243-8546>
>
>
>
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-bounces@
> lists.ucla.edu <religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Ashutosh
> A Bhagwat
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April
osh A Bhagwat
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 5:31 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Subject: Re: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?
I may be completely wrong here, but if this is a section 1983 ca
...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Eric J Segall
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 5:28 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?
Well if that is true, and I think it is, t
PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?
I may be completely wrong here, but if this is a section 1983 case enforcing
the Religion Clauses as incorporated through the 14th Amendment, does that
trump 11th Amendment
<hd...@virginia.edu<mailto:hd...@virginia.edu>>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 2:21 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?
I haven’t looked at the complaint, but that has to be right. Damages for delay
could not be recovered from the stat
2017 2:21 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?
I haven’t looked at the complaint, but that has to be right. Damages for delay
could not be recovered from the state, or from any state official in his
official capacity, because of so
n Behalf Of Eric J Segall
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 5:13 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Subject: Re: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?
Doug, is the complaint seeking money as damages for wrongful denial
t;
Subject: Re: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?
Doug, is the complaint seeking money as damages for wrongful denial? That seems
to run into the 11th. I assumed plaintiffs can only ask for prospective relief
in this case.
Best,
Eric
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 18, 2017, at 5:04 PM, Laycock,
o:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 4:40 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Subject: Re: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?
But Doug, the relie
18, 2017 4:40 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?
But Doug, the relied requested was simply the ability to compete for the grant
without the church disqualification -- and they've now received
tin.leder...@law.georgetown.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 4:39:32 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?
But Doug, the relied requested was simply the ability to compete for the grant
without the church disqualification -- and they
But Doug, the relied requested was simply the ability to compete for the
grant without the church disqualification -- and they've now received
precisely that. It's also not simply a policy change -- it is, presumably,
a conclusion that they are *legally required *not to exclude the church.
Yes,
Giving the church the tires or the money would moot the case. But so far, they
have only announced a policy change, and that does not moot the case—especially
where, as here, the other side has a plausible claim and could immediately sue
the state officials to prevent them from granting the
18 matches
Mail list logo
