RLUIPA and light pollution?

[Steven Jamar]

On 12/11/06, Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>
>     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.

Which is, in fact, what the court does -- there is not one standard of
compellingness nor one standard of substantialness of burden.

I think enabling research, much of which is certainly government
funded, can be a sufficiently strong interest when compared to the
desire to have bright lights shine all night.

Anyway, isn't this a simple time, place, manner restriction so it
needs less than strict scrutiny as a constitutional law matter?  Does
RLUIPA really purport to do away with all such restrictions as to
speech and exercise unless the strictest standard can be met?

The surest way to get a law overturned/modified is to enforce it as
strictly according to its terms as construction of its terms would
allow.

Steve


-- 
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law