This is a RFRA case, not a free exercise case, so it does
not affect Smith. But it does show that the Court is willing to take RFRA
seriously and enforce it according to its terms. It may also have a
persuasive effect on state courts interpreting state RFRAs.
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] On Behalf Of Brad M Pardee
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 10:26 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Breaking news in federal RFRA case
Does this decision affect Employment Division Vs. Smith? The quote below makes it sound like it is revisiting the same issue. One can only hope!
Brad
Mark Tushnet wrote on 02/21/2006 09:12:53 AM:
> "the Court ruled unanimously that the government may not ban a religious
> from using a herbal tea that contains a substance that the government
> considers to be harmful. The Chief Justice wrote the opinion. Only new
> Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., did not take part." -- from SCOTUS Blog
_______________________________________________ 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.
