I take this footnote to mean religious books and ritual items the inmate wants in his own cell for personal use -- not the cost to the prison of complying with the statute. The rules of construction in the text of the statute actually address this issue. They say that the act neither creates nor precludes a right to have the state fund a religious organization or pay for a religious activity, but the state does have to pay the costs of removing substantial burdens on religious activity. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 512-471-6988 (fax)
________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Marc Stern Sent: Wed 6/1/2005 8:30 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: RLUIPA Unanimously Upheld in Cutter Footnote 8 in Justice Ginsburg's opinion suggests that the state has no obligation to pay for an"inmate's devotional accessories." What does this sentence-which involved no issue litigated in Cutter mean for the cost of chaplains (especially for minority faiths),for religious diets, or for that matter the administrative costs of complying with RLUIPA, which Ohio thought caused the statue to amount to an establishment of religion? Marc Stern ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Garnett Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 5:29 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: RLUIPA Unanimously Upheld in Cutter Dear all, Picking up on Steven Lamar's mentioning of the AALS, I thought I'd jump in and mention that the AALS's Law and Religion Section has planned and put together two different programs for January's conference: "The (Re)Turn to History in Religion Clause Law and Scholarship" and "Religion, Division, and the Constitution." Papers and presentations will be shared by Steve Smith, Steve Green, Marci Hamilton, Doug Laycock, Larry Solum, Fred Gedicks, David Campbell, Noah Feldman, Step Feldman, Lee Strang, and others. Unfortunately, the "Division" panel has been given a sub-optimal time-slot (Sunday morning). Still, I'd encourage folks to try to schedule your travel in a way that permits attending. Best wishes, Rick Garnett At 12:28 PM 5/31/2005, you wrote: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C56606.2FA2323C" I see no interment. They have ignored it before, and then returned to it when they thought it helpful. This opinion relies on Amos, and Amos marches through the Lemon test, so it may just be that they have more specific doctrine to work with on this issue. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 11:20 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: RLUIPA Unanimously Upheld in Cutter Time for another AALS panel writing the obit for Lemon? :) Steve On May 31, 2005, at 12:12 PM, Stuart BUCK wrote: So has the Lemon test been interred, or not? Compare footnote 6 of the majority ("We resolve this case on other grounds."), with Thomas's footnote 1 ("The Court properly declines to assess RLUIPA under the discredited test of Lemon . . . ."). Best, Stuart Buck -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime, Therefore, we are saved by hope. Nothing true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; Therefore, we are saved by faith. Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone. Therefore, we are saved by love. No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as from our own; Therefore, we are saved by the final form of love which is forgiveness. Reinhold Neibuhr _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
<<winmail.dat>>
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
