RLUIPA and light pollution?

[Volokh, Eugene]

    I sympathize with light pollution ordinances, and I'm not sure that
they impose a substantial burden here.  But if there's a *compelling*
government interest in preventing light pollution, then we really are in
"strict in theory, feeble in fact" territory.
 
________________________________

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
hamilton02 at aol.com
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 8:42 AM
To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: RLUIPA and light pollution?



	RLUIPA is not blanket protection from the operation of the law.
I would think that the federal laws at issue here would satisfy strict
scrutiny.  I also have some questions regarding whether the intensity of
the light bulb can be argued as a substantial burden on "religious
exercise."  RLUIPA defines religious exercise to include any potential
belief, not just central beliefs, but the light intensity argument seems
to me to be a very tough one for the religious entities to win.
Moreover, where is the burden on reducing the wattage?  RLUIPA is
unlikely to assist the religious entity here.
	 
	Marci 
	 
	Marci A. Hamilton 
	Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
	Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
	Yeshiva University 
	 
	 
	-----Original Message-----
	From: stcynic at crystalauto.com
	To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
	Sent: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 12:34 AM
	Subject: RLUIPA and light pollution?
	
	
	Here's an interesting situation I'd like to get some opinions
about. 
	 
	
http://www.thedesertsun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061209/NEWS01/6
12090325 
	 
	A church in Palm Desert, CA, has a giant lit cross that
apparently violates the local light pollution ordinances (it's about 6
times brighter than the zoning laws allow). According to Phil Plait
(http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/12/09/science-versus-religion/)
, an astronomer, it's causing problems for the Mt. Palomar space
telescope, and apparently Federal law requires that all such lights
within 45 miles of the observatory be shut off at night. A law professor
from USC says that the RLUIPA prevents any enforcement of those
statutes, but that strikes me as unlikely. Any thoughts? 
	 
	Ed Brayton 
	_______________________________________________ 
	To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
<mailto:Religionlaw%40lists.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. 
	
________________________________

	Check out the new AOL
<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/1615326657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redi
r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaol%2Ecom%2Fnewaol> . Most comprehensive set of
free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality
videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
	

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20061211/f037d8af/attachment.htm