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

The petitioner's briefing at the cert stage of this case has been profoundly discouraging. Although the case does raise a genuinely interesting question that may be worthy of Supreme Court review -- must a RFRA plaintiff show "an honest belief that the practice is important to his free exercise

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

ics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Date: Friday, May 5, 2017 at 8:20 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: Re: Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens Paul Clement's reply brief<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://www.sco

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

Paul Clement's reply brief . Case schedule for Conference on 05/18. On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Marty Lederman < martin.leder...@law.georgetown.edu> wrote: > Now that Paul Clement has filed a cert. petition >

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

u<mailto:martin.leder...@law.georgetown.edu>> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 4:37 PM Subject: Re: Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens To: Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com<mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com>> Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Acad

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

Here's the government's brief in opposition . It stresses that RFRA's substantial burden test requires the claimant at a minimum to provide evidence of an honest belief that the practice in question--rather than available

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

hristopher.lund/ > > Papers—http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=363402 > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-bounces@ > lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Case, Mary Anne > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 21, 2017 7:34 PM >

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

sues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: RE: Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens As Marty Lederman among others has demonstrated, the Greens of Hobby Lobby were never “compelled … to do something that they thought religiously forbidden;” they always had

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

-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 6:22 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens Well, given that Gorsuch v

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

ysis to me. Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Case, Mary Anne Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 4:08 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA bur

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

a.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 5:26 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; James Oleske Subject: Re: Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens Thanks to Jim Oleske for the kind words. Here is a thou

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

Thanks to Jim Oleske for the kind words. Here is a thought about the general landscape of inquiry into burdens on religion, and a related thought about the way Texas has argued in these various matters: 1) The proposition that RFRA's "substantial burden" inquiry includes both a "secular cost" and

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

It is also worth noting that Texas has filed an amicus brief in support of Sterling's cert. petition that appears to be in some tension with the state's 5th Circuit brief in *Sossoman*. Compare Texas Amicus Br. in Sterling at 6-9 ("The Court Below *Wrongly Inquired into the Religious Importance*

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

Thanks to Marty for re-upping this thread. Two initial, related thoughts: 1. It would be very interesting to hear from Chip on this issue, as the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) explicitly cited his excellent article, "*Hobby Lobby* and the Dubious Enterprise of Religious

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

* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu <religionlaw-bounces@lists. > ucla.edu> on behalf of Eric J Segall <eseg...@gsu.edu> > *Sent:* Monday, February 20, 2017 1:11:50 PM > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Subject:* Re: Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case o

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

...@lists.ucla.edu <religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> on behalf of Eric J Segall <eseg...@gsu.edu> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 1:11:50 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens That's fair Doug. e Sent from my i

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

ederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com<mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com>> Subject: 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 th

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

gionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>; Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> Subject: 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 t

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

la.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman > *Sent:* Monday, February 20, 2017 3:07 PM > *To:* Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > *Subject:* Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA b

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

Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; Marty Lederman Subject: 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 te

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

ry 20, 2017 3:07 PM > *To:* Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > *Subject:* Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens > > > > Now that Paul Clement has filed a cert

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

upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens Now that Paul Clement has filed a cert. petition<http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/16-814-cert-petition.pdf> in this case, I thought I might revive the thread, which didn't inspire any reactions last time arou

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

gt; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > Date: Monday, February 20, 2017 at 3:05 PM > To: Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> > Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > Subject: Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens >

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

Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com<mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com>> Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>> Subject: Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens Now that Paul Clement has file