Why the Grant/Vacate/Remand in the RFRA bankruptcy case?

[Steven D. Jamar]

I'll bite - I read tea leaves all the time!  :)

This lends credence to the idea that the usurpation theory may have force
and so RFRA is not good law at the federal level either - and, if the
usurpation theory prevails, then premising RFRA on the C&P Covenant doesn't
help much.  But I wonder if the text of the C&P Covenant might not beused
persuasively to convince the court that the RFRA standard (sensibly
applied, i.e., not according to its eplicit language in a formalistic,
narrow sense, but as a balancing test) is ok?

Cheers,
Steve Jamar

>     The Court just granted the cert petition in Christians (the case
> that held that RFRA barred recovery of tithes), vacated, and remanded
> for further consideration in light of City of Boerne v. Flores.  Huh?
> Is it just a "we've got an excuse to off-load some work, so we might
> as well do it" GVR?  Obviously there's no clear state/federal power
> question there.
>
> ------------------------------------------  -------------------------
> "The road we follow                         Eugene Volokh
>  leads to Mount Fuji, if we                 UCLA Law School
>  get past this meeting."                    405 Hilgard, LA, CA 90095
>  W. Warriner, 101 Corporate Haiku no. 42    (310) 206-3926

Steven D. Jamar
Professor of Law
Director LRW Program
Howard University School of Law
2900 Van Ness Street NW
Washington, DC  20008

vox:  202-806-8017   fax:  202-806-8428
email:  sjamar at law.howard.edu

The more you know, the more you know you don't know.