test, if
we agree that “compelling interest” can’t mean here what it might mean in
other places?
Best,
Chris
From: Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 10:44 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Strict scrutiny, from Sherbert/Yoder to RFRA
I
what it might mean in other
places?
Best,
Chris
From: Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 10:44 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Strict scrutiny, from Sherbert/Yoder to RFRA
I disagree on very much with Marci, and I’m not sure
scrutiny, from Sherbert/Yoder to RFRA
I wanted to send out a thought relating to earlier posts by Mark Graber and
Eugene Volokh. They suggest an intermediate standard of review, somewhere
between strict scrutiny and Smith. I think they are right on the key point.
The usual “strict scrutiny
Alan is too modest for shameless plugs, but he has written very thoughtfully
about the need for more fine-grained analysis of free exercise questions, with
multiple tests depending on context, in an article in 2006 or so. I think it's
called Taking Free Exercise Seriously.
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012
___
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
On Behalf Of Christopher Lund [l...@wayne.edu]
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 4:36 PM
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Strict scrutiny, from Sherbert/Yoder to RFRA
I wanted to send out a thought
From: Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 10:44 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Strict scrutiny, from Sherbert/Yoder to RFRA
I disagree on very much with Marci, and I’m not sure that the
Sherbert/Yoder test would have been inapplicable
