I haven't read all of the background materials, but it seems to me a little bizarre to worry about what one could hide in a 1/4, 1/2 or even 3 inch beard given what one could hide in a typical prison uniform. If uniforms are searched for contraband, why not beards? Seems like it would be much easier and safer than a uniform search, unless there is some religious ban against someone touching one's beard.
And what about the value encouraging state to expend a little effort and creativity in meeting believers half-way by putting the state to its burden of proof on its interests? In Hennepin County, the jail created an inmate hijab for Muslim women that doesn't have any folds or places where contraband can be hidden. To use the argument example, why couldn't a Sikh be issued a transparent turban designed to minimize the ability to hide contraband? Could Doug or someone could explain the state's argument in the lower court that someone could drastically change his appearance by shaving his beard as a reason for denial? I presume that implies that he could escape. I am trying to imagine a case in which a guy walking around in prison with a jumpsuit (or less) would be allowed to leave prison because he wasn't recognized as prisoner X. In the movies, at least the prisoners have to steal a guard's uniform to get out:) I also wonder what everybody thinks about Scalia's statement that religious beliefs are "categorical," "it's [what] God tells you," implying that there is no such thing as ethical "partial" compliance and that there has to be a specific oral or written command from God for a RLIUPA claim to be viable? I guess I would have to be a complete pacifist, observe glatt kosher (and no elevators on Shabbat) or go to church every Sunday before I could object to the state's rules. Or does Scalia mistakenly assume that Islam is more "categorical" than these other religions? On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Berg, Thomas C. <tcb...@stthomas.edu> wrote: > The oral argument transcript is up, > http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-6827_8758.pdf. > I haven't read it yet, but from the SCOTUS Blog report, it looks like > things went poorly for the state. > http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/argument-report-trouble-at-the-lectern/ > > We've had little discussion of this case on the list. I've presumed > that's because there is a wide consensus that the case is easy. SCOTUS > Blog likewise concludes that "[t]he case, at least from the tenor of the > oral argument, did not seem to be a difficult one." But assuming that Holt > wins, there remains the important question of the precise language the > Court will use to explicate the compelling interest standard in the prison > context, where officials get some deference. > > ----------------------------------------- > > Thomas C. Berg > > James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy > > University of St. Thomas School of Law > > MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue > > Minneapolis, MN 55403-2015 > > Phone: 651 962 4918 > > Fax: 651 962 4881 > > E-mail: tcb...@stthomas.edu > > SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author='261564 > > Weblog: http://www.mirrorofjustice.blogs.com > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- Marie A. Failinger Professor of Law Hamline University School of Law 1536 Hewitt Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55104 U.S.A. 651.523.2124 (work phone) 651.523.2236 (work fax) mfailin...@hamline.edu (email)
_______________________________________________ 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.
