There are two theories as to standing in this case, I think.
One is psychological injury standing; that’s what we’ve been discussing, and I
think that under the bulk of the circuit cases – with the exception of the
Catholic Charities majority – there is no standing to challenge the very
existence of a law, as opposed to the display of a monument, seal, slogan, etc.
to which the plaintiff is routinely physically exposed.
The second is the they-can’t-probate-my-will theory; but the
problem with that, I think, is that a secular court already can’t try to
interpret Sharia law – or Mosaic law or the Bible or any other religious
authority – in interpreting a will, deed, or contract. So again the plaintiff
is suffering no tangible harm from the existence of the law, it seems to me.
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 12:30 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: FW: TRO against Oklahoma "no use of Sharia Law"
I don't think Eugene is correct on this point. His complaint states that he
will be negatively affected, because his will requires reference to Sharia law
regarding his burial. So I think he is closer to someone who can show
cognizable harm. I think he may have an argument on ripeness, because the OK
amendment affects how he drafts his will, not just probate after he dies.
If he does survive standing and ripeness, I think a chief problem with the law
is that the term "Shariah law" is vague. He sounds like a moderate Muslim who
does not follow the views of the radical extremists. For him, Shariah law goes
to how he is buried and how he deals with people on a daily basis.
Marci
In a message dated 11/10/2010 2:20:34 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
vol...@law.ucla.edu writes:
Well, the Catholic League minority reasoned that “the parties who are
personally the subjects of the resolution, such as Cardinal Levada, Archbishop
Niederauer, and Catholic Charities, could demonstrate cognizable harm,” because
they were singled out by name in the resolution; but that people who are simply
offended by the condemnation of Catholicism do not have standing. I would
think that the plaintiff in the Oklahoma case falls more in the latter category
than in the former.
_______________________________________________
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.
