Cert granted in Cutter

[Marty Lederman]

Well, I can't speak for DOJ here, because I doubt that I've read all their
briefs, but I think the answer is "no."  Section 3 does not have an
"individualized assessment" provision that instantiates Sherbert/Lukumi, nor
any of the other section 5 provisions found in section 2(b) of the land-use
section.  Unless I'm misremembering, it is exclusively (and expressly) a
Spending/Commerce provision -- thus, a plaintiff must either show that the
agency receives federal funds, or that the substantial burden on religious
exercise affects (or its alleviation would affect) interstate commerce.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Hamilton02 at aol.com>
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 2:05 PM
Subject: RE: Cert granted in Cutter


> Marty---I haven't really been following the prison side on RLUIPA.  Has
the DOJ been arguing--as on the land use side of RLUIPA--that it merely
mirrors existing Free Exercise doctrine?
>
> Marci
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at 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.
>