Re: Alito dissent from denial in (what should have been) a prison Lukumi case

I have now seen the reply brief. (I can send it to any interested parties.) It, too, fails to invoke Lukumi or Larsen or Kiryas Joel, or any other discrimination case. Indeed, it tries to focus the petition on RLUIPA rather than on the First Amendment. The reply brief does, however, transcribe

Alito dissent from denial in (what should have been) a prison Lukumi case

see pp. 39f. of the pdf: http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022916zor_7lho.pdf The Court undoubtedly denied *cert.* because the pro se filing was very weak, verging on unintelligibility: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Petitioners-Brief.pdf Alito appears to be