Title: Scholarship advocating conservative judicial activism
What issues concerning the First Amendment's religion clauses are likely to be the earliest to come beforethe Roberts Court? I'd appreciate any predictions or guesses from the list.___
To
I'd think that the government religious speech cases might be coming
back, because the last attempted resolution (in the Ten Commandments
cases) is likely to prove quite unadministrable, and because there's a
decent chance that now there are five votes to jettison the endorsement
test.
I would add that an early Establishment Clause challenge to RLUIPA's
land use provisions seems likely, as does renewed litigation about
charitable choice-i.e., the Iowa prison litigation. Perhaps too the
Court will look at the growing split about the ministerial exception to
Title VII.
Marc Stern
Volokh, Eugene wrote:
I'd think that the government religious speech cases might be coming
back, because the last attempted resolution (in the Ten Commandments
cases) is likely to prove quite unadministrable, and because there's a
decent chance that now there are five votes to jettison the
Not that I would not welcome it, but I would be surprised to see one of the
RLUIPA land usecases come before the Court this Term unless the issue is
the standard under "substantial burden." There has been far more activity
on that issue than the constitutional issues in the courts of
Direct aid to religious schools and institutions in general: there may be
five votes now for the Thomas plurality opinion in Mitchell v. Helms that
(at least) direct aid on an equal per-capita basis is permissible. The
direct-aid vs. private-choice distinction has been relevant in litigation
in
All of the suggestions that have been made in response to this
question (religion clause issues likely to come to the Roberts Court)
have been insightful..But does anyone know of any real and sharp
conflicts among the federal courts of appeals or the state supreme
courts on the issues that
I would think that the Mt. Soledad Cross case might get to the Court.
Justice Kennedy has already granted a stay of the trial court's order
pending disposition of the appeal to the 9th Circuit. So at least one
Justice has a strong interest in it. See
I was thinking about the Mt. Soledad case, but it may not be
optimal from the conservatives' viewpoint, since it's an overtly
Christian symbol. The line Scalia drew in the Ten Commandments cases
seemed to be between the Christian symbols and Judeo-Christian-Muslim(?)
symbols, with the
Volokh, Eugene wrote:
I was thinking about the Mt. Soledad case, but it may not be
optimal from the conservatives' viewpoint, since it's an overtly
Christian symbol. The line Scalia drew in the Ten Commandments cases
seemed to be between the Christian symbols and
Title: Re: The Roberts Court
I would also add that he
won't change his vote on the creche in Allegheny County.
Douglas Laycock
Alice McKean Young Regents Chair in
Law
The University of Texas at Austin
Mailing Address:
Prof. Douglas Laycock
University ofMichigan Law School
625 S.
Aren't there independent state constitutional law grounds involved in
the Mt. Soledad case? If so, won't those grounds undermine the
likelihood of the Supreme Court ever deciding it on the merits?
On 25 Jul 2006 at 12:23, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
I was thinking about the Mt. Soledad case, but
Good question, Chip. There is enough of a difference between
the various circuits on "substantial burden" under RLUIPA's land use
provisionsthat it can credibly be called a circuit split. But will
the Court feel the need to intervene? Hard to say.
We're going to see an increasing split on
I think that the Court is less concerned with
circuit splits in the religion clause area than elsewhere. Marsh presented no
circuit split; neither did Lynch, Witters, Rosenberger Widmar, City of Boerne and Kiryas Joel.
Zobrest, and many of the state aid to the
school cases. Whether
14 matches
Mail list logo
