Re: Scalia's views of RFRA?

During the Holt v. Hobbs oral argument, in discussing the strict scrutiny standard in RLUIPA, Justice Scalia said the following: "We’re talking here about a compelling State interest. *Bear in mind I would not have enacted this statute*, but there it is. It says there has to be a compelling State

RE: Scalia's views of RFRA?

The quoted language comes directly from Scalia’s opinion in Smith. The full sentence is: ”It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in; but that unavoidable consequence

RE: Scalia's views of RFRA?

From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 3:37 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Scalia's views of RFRA? The Scalia opinion in Smith of course did not anticipate a law like

New Jersey RLUIPA lawsuit

Thought list readers might be interested in this RLUIPA lawsuit announced by DOJ, on behalf of a mosque in New Jersey: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-suit-against-bernards-township-new-jersey-over-denial-zoning ___ To post,

Re: Scalia's views of RFRA?

I never read Smith that way — it was a straight up carte blanche to the legislative and executive branches provided the law was neutral and generally applicable — no weighing of competing interests involved. Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar Assoc. Dir. of International

Re: Scalia's views of RFRA?

But that language is Scalia explaining why he is not doing a balancing test but rather the abdication test. Scalia clearly wanted out of religious exercise jurisprudence and did so — he did not adopt a balancing test. I guess I misread your original post. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar

Re: Scalia's views of RFRA?

The Scalia opinion in Smith of course did not anticipate a law like RFRA; instead, he was referencing practice-specific accommodations (like a peyote prohibition that exempted Native American Church members who used peyote in sacraments.) Mary Anne, your comment has an excluded middle -- RFRA, as

Re: New Jersey RLUIPA lawsuit

I wonder if Eric Rassbach (and others at The Becket Fund, which has commendably and energetically pursued RLUIPA cases on behalf of mosques and Muslim prison inmates) expects such lawsuits, by the DOJ on behalf of those building a mosque, to continue in the next Administration. On Tue, Nov 22,

RE: Scalia's views of RFRA?

Yes. This is the closest he came to expressing an opinion that I know about. Going into O Centro, we all wondered if those who voted for Smith would also be hostile to the statute. It turned out that they weren’t. I think that is a better indicator than Hobby Lobby, because that had become a

Scalia's views of RFRA?

Other than his stray remarks at the Hobby Lobby oral argument (for example noting that RFRA went beyond the pre-Smith case law in mandating not just a compelling state interest but narrow tailoring) did Scalia ever in any venue set forth his views on RFRA (for example expressing disappointment

Re: Scalia's views of RFRA?

There was no compelling interest test at the time of Reynolds, so being a law unto yourself would be the beginning and end of the game. RFRA adds a step to the game. And with all respect to the departed, I do not know why we should care what Justice Scalia thought about any subject on which he did

RE: Scalia's views of RFRA?

Sorry, Ira, was moved to ask about the deceased’s views in aid of a solicited piece on the jurisprudential views and rhetorical moves of the deceased (not RFRA specific views). From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu Sent:

Re: Scalia's views of RFRA?

I think you are right, Alan. Adding to the privately imposed cost of religious compliance (peyote now costs more) does not coerce religious practice. I would say that is not a cognizable burden under RFRA at all, so the size of it (costs 10x more vs, 3x more) does not matter. But see RLUIPA land

RE: New Jersey RLUIPA lawsuit

As Eric Rassbach mentioned, the Bush 43 administration brought a number of RLUIPA cases on behalf of Muslim religious groups. More broadly, the Civil Rights Division was given a leading role in the Bush administration’s tried to reach out to Muslim communities (and other groups mistaken for

Re: New Jersey RLUIPA lawsuit

Chip -- I'm afraid I don't have any crystal ball on that. It is my recollection that there were a number of mosque cases brought during the previous Republican administration. One I know about because it was our case was the Albanian Associated Fund mosque case in Wayne, NJ. (New Jersey seems

Re: Scalia's views of RFRA?

No apologies necessary except for using Ira instead of Chip. In light of that request, you might reflect on how the committed originalist has not one word in Smith about the original meaning of the Free Exercise Clause. In 1991, I asked him about this when he came to GW to give a lecture, and he

Re: Scalia's views of RFRA?

I respectfully object to the term "committed originalist," (self-promoting articles omitted). Kind of hoping you were being 100% saracastic. e Sent from my iPhone On Nov 22, 2016, at 5:26 PM, Ira Lupu > wrote: No apologies necessary except for

Re: Scalia's views of RFRA?

I have suggested to my students (Yeah, I'm still teaching one semester a year) that RFRA as construed in Hobby Lobby pretty much leaves it to each person's conscience to determine when they are substantially burdened by a federal law when the law allegedly compels them to do something that