News of Employment Division v. Smith not reaching some districtcourts?

[Marty Lederman]

What about RLUIPA section 3?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu>
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 6:36 PM
Subject: News of Employment Division v. Smith not reaching some 
districtcourts?


Alley v. Levy, 2006 WL 1804605 (M.D. Tenn.) grants a Tennessee
state death row inmate's request for a preliminary injunction blocking
the autopsy of his body, on Free Exercise Clause grounds.  The court
says nothing about Smith, and simply asserts that strict scrutiny
applies.  It cites Workman v. Levy, 136 F. Supp. 2d 899, 900 (M.D. Tenn.
2001), which had done the same; that in turns cites United States v.
Hammer, 121 F. Supp. 2d 794, 802 (M.D. Pa. 2000), which had done the
same (though at least in Hammer the same result might have been reached
under RFRA, since that involves a federal inmate).

Eugene
_______________________________________________
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.