Re: Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens

Oh, I'm sure that Sterling would attest that posting the signs fit into her "system" of religious practice. I'm even willing to assume she could have easily demonstrated that the scriptural "reminders" were very important to her, at least in the sense that they gave her peace of mind or lowered

RE: Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens

This case may well be a trial lawyer’s failure to put on the evidence. Lawyers too often think the burden on religious practice is obvious, and fail to elicit the testimony that would clearly explain how and why the practice is religious and important and the challenged rule is a substantial

Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens

Now that Paul Clement has filed a cert. petition in this case, I thought I might revive the thread, which didn't inspire any reactions last time around! Perhaps I'm alone, but it strikes me that the case raises a very

Re: Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens

For whatever it’s worth, I have argued recently that the substantial burden inquiry should be governed by something like a requirement that the claimant come forward with some evidence to explain how the religious exercise fits into a “system” of religious belief and practice. That showing

Re: Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens

For those interested in this issue, the Illinois Law Review Online put together a symposium of short articles on the substantial burden question, including short essays from: Liz Sepper ( https://illinoislawreview.org/online/2016/substantial-burdens/substantiating-the-burdens-of-compliance/ ) Amy

Re: Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens

As Doug knows, I agree with much of what he writes here, particularly about how such claims will, in the long-run, discredit the project of religious accommodation. I'd only take issue with his assumption that this case might only be an example of negligent lawyering. After all, all of us remind

RE: Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens

Well, the widespread hostility to enforcing RFRA is a threat to religious liberty. Just because RFRA's supporters overreach on some issues does not change the fact that RFRA's opponents are overreaching on other issues. Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University

Re: Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens

That's fair Doug. e Sent from my iPhone On Feb 20, 2017, at 4:01 PM, Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c) > wrote: Well, the widespread hostility to enforcing RFRA is a threat to religious liberty. Just because RFRA’s supporters overreach on some issues

Re: Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens

Three quick thoughts. 1. It would be helpful at least as a first step to limit the passages in Hobby Lobby about substantial burden to which Doug refers to claims where the government requires religious individuals or institutions to so some thing that their religion prohibits (often

Re: Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens

Thanks, Alan. Yes, as I mentioned in my first post on the case last summer, the USG would definitely win under RFRA, anyway, because avoiding a Free Speech violation would surely be a compelling interest for denying the exemption. Another reason the Court should deny cert. It shouldn't even be

Re: Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens

Beautifully said Doug. I would just add that the kind of potential abuse you are talking about is maybe inevitable when this kind of law becomes part of the culture wars, and RFRA certainly has become that. Even Justice Alito has given speeches saying the potential non-enforcement of RFRA has