The Roberts Court

[Friedman, Howard M.]

I would think that the Mt. Soledad Cross case might get to the Court.
Justice Kennedy has already granted a stay of the trial court's order
pending disposition of the appeal to the 9th Circuit. So at least one
Justice has a strong interest in it.  See
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2006/07/justice-kennedy-stays-order-t
o-remove.html
*************************************
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 
************************************* 


-----Original Message-----
From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Lupu
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 12:32 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: The Roberts Court

All of the suggestions that have been made in response to this 
question (religion clause issues likely to come to the Roberts Court) 
have been insightful..But does anyone know of any real and sharp 
conflicts among the federal courts of appeals or the state supreme 
courts on the issues that have been identified?

On the issues that I know best (those involving the faith-based 
initiative), I don't see such conflicts, primarily because the
government 
defendants have rarely appealed the cases they have lost in the lower 
courts.  The Iowa prison case will be an exception to that, but I don't 
foresee any sharply defined circuit court conflict coming out of that 
appeal.  Perhaps an affirmance of the restitution order against 
InnerChange would produce a cert petition and a grant, because of the 
novelty of the question.

Chip Lupu 

On 25 Jul 2006 at 10:32, Berg, Thomas C. wrote:

> Direct aid to religious schools and institutions in general: there may
> be five votes now for the Thomas plurality opinion in Mitchell v.
> Helms that (at least) direct aid on an equal per-capita basis is
> permissible.  The direct-aid  vs. private-choice distinction has been
> relevant in litigation in the last five years with respect both to
> education programs (e.g. Columbia Union College, 4th CIr.) and to
> social services programs (e.g. Faith Works case, 7th CIr.), suggesting
> that a program that tested the contours or continuing validity of the
> distinction may be litigated soon.
> 
> Tom Berg
> University of St. Thomas School of Law (MInnesota)
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: Marc Stern [mailto:mstern at ajcongress.org]
> Sent: Tue 7/25/2006 9:01 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: The Roberts Court
> 
> 
> 
> I would add that an early Establishment Clause challenge to RLUIPA's
> land use provisions seems likely, as does  renewed litigation about
> charitable choice-i.e., the Iowa prison litigation. Perhaps too the
> Court will look at the growing split about the ministerial exception
> to Title VII. Marc Stern 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> <mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu> ] On Behalf Of Volokh,
> Eugene Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:45 AM To: Law & Religion issues
> for Law Academics Subject: RE: The Roberts Court 
> 
>     I'd think that the government religious speech cases might be
>     coming 
> back, because the last attempted resolution (in the Ten Commandments
> cases) is likely to prove quite unadministrable, and because there's a
> decent chance that now there are five votes to jettison the
> endorsement test. 
> 
>     Eugene 
> 
> 
> ________________________________ 
> 
>         From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> <mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu> ] On Behalf Of Tepker,
> Rick 
>         Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:38 AM 
>         To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu 
>         Subject: The Roberts Court 
> 
> 
>                 What issues concerning the First Amendment's religion
> clauses are likely to be the earliest to come before the Roberts
> Court? I'd appreciate any predictions or guesses from the list. 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> 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
> <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. 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> 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
> <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.
> 
> 



Ira C. ("Chip") Lupu
F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law 
The George Washington University Law School 
2000 H St., NW
Washington D.C 20052

(202) 994-7053

ICLUPU at main.nlc.gwu.edu
ICLUPU at law.gwu.edu


_______________________________________________
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.