RE: Nullifying RLUIPA

[Marc Stern]

In addition to what Doug has written, I would note that many prisons have a common fare diet which satisfies the dietary restrictions of many faiths. That their might be some dietary claims that could not be met-the legendary steak and sherry claims of the church of the new song in the Theriault case- hardly means that most claims cannot be satisfied. Of course, I suppose one could tale the position that if everyone cannot be accommodated, no on should be, but that is not a sensible rule of law even if Justice Stevens came close to adopting it in his Goldman v. Weinberger concurrence. Marc Stern   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 2:28 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Nullifying RLUIPA   In response to Marci's query whethere there is some limit on what prisons must do, of course there is.  No one says the prisoners win every case; that is her straw man.  Some diet claims are insincere; some demand that the religious requirements be met in a different way, although the prison has already met them; some may be too expensive, although I want the court to seriously look at the evidence on that.   The right to kosher and halel food is so sensible that it has largely survived the lack of any doctrinal basis after Turner and Smith.  RLUIPA grounds those claims again, and of course it reaches some of them.  Some prisons insisted on pouring pork drippings over everything until they got sued; objecting to that is a dietary claim that Marci would apparently reject.  Claiming that RLUIPA does not require the prison to "pay for any dietary request" makes sense only if one intends to nullify the Act by "interpretation" now that the Court has refused to nullify it on a constitutional challenge.    Doug       Are you taking the position that RLUIPA places a burden on every prison to accommodate every religious diet request?  I don't see how RLUIPA creates a requirement that the prison pay for any dietary request.  There are literally hundreds of diet variations among the many religions.   No prison can cover them all, and there has to be some limit to what prisons must do, right?     Marci     In a message dated 6/1/2005 10:47:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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)

_______________________________________________
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.