Breaking news in federal RFRA case

[Friedman, Howard M.]

For anyone interested, I have a blog post up on O Centro giving my
preliminary thoughts on the case:

 
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2006/02/preliminary-thoughts-on-today
s-o.html  (It also links to an earlier posting merely describing the
holding.)

 

*************************************
Howard M. Friedman 
Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus
University of Toledo College of Law
Toledo, OH 43606-3390 
Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 
E-mail: howard.friedman at utoledo.edu 
************************************* 

________________________________

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 11:33 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Breaking news in federal RFRA case

 

On the contrary:  The Court comes right out and says to the government:
"See, we told you this would happen -- that's why we decided Smith the
way we did.  But you had to go ahead and pass RFRA anyway, so here's
what you get . . . "

 

Well, this is how the Chief puts it, but I think the "You made your bed
. . . " subtext is manifest:

	We have no cause to pretend that the task assigned by Congress
to the courts under RFRA is an easy one. Indeed, the very sort of
difficulties highlighted by the Government here were cited by this Court
in deciding that the approach later mandated by Congress under RFRA was
not required as a matter of constitutional law under the Free Exercise
Clause. See Smith, 494 U. S., at 885,890. But Congress has determined
that courts should strike sensible balances, pursuant to a compelling
interest test that requires the Government to address the particular
practice at issue.

	----- Original Message ----- 

	From: Brad M Pardee <mailto:bpardee at unlnotes.unl.edu>  

	To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
<mailto:religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>  

	Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 11:25 AM

	Subject: Re: Breaking news in federal RFRA case

	 

	
	Does this decision affect Employment Division Vs. Smith?  The
quote below makes it sound like it is revisiting the same issue.  One
can only hope! 
	
	Brad 
	
	Mark Tushnet wrote on 02/21/2006 09:12:53 AM:
	
	> "the Court ruled unanimously that the government may not ban a
religious 
	> from using a herbal tea that contains a substance that the
government 
	> considers to be harmful. The Chief Justice wrote the opinion.
Only new 
	> Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., did not take part." -- from
SCOTUS Blog

	
________________________________


	_______________________________________________
	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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20060221/c1e090e6/attachment.htm