RLUIPA and light pollution?

[Steven Jamar]

Eugene,

Do you mean to say that avoiding light pollution for the astronomical
observatory is not compelling?  Or are you saying that the law is not
narrowly tailored enough or is not the least restrictive alternative?

It seems to me that the interest is compelling and that the inquiry
would not be about that, but rather about least restrictrive.  Or does
one not even get to least restrictive alternative if there is a
compelling interest that does not substantially burden?

I think one could argue that  there is a compelling interest here, and
that it does not substantially burdent the exercise, and that one does
not need to find a less restrictive alternative under  these
circumstances.

I also stand by my prior post that I don't think RLUIPA or RFRAs
should be interpretted in the Volokhian all-or-nothing manner.

Steve


-- 
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law