The Roberts Court

[Hamilton02 at aol.com]

Good question, Chip.   There is enough of a difference between  the various 
circuits on "substantial burden" under RLUIPA's land use  provisions that it 
can credibly be called a circuit split.  But will  the Court feel the need to 
intervene?  Hard to say.
 
We're going to see an increasing split on how to implement the standard  
under the RLUIPA prison provisions in light of Cutter.  Some courts have  read it 
as old-fashioned strict scrutiny, others have not.
 
Finally, one issue not yet mentioned is the role of the First Amendment  
and/or RFRA in the clergy abuse federal bankruptcies.  But there are only 2  live 
bankruptcies at this time and no split as of yet.
 
Marci
 
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 7/25/2006 12:35:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
iclupu at law.gwu.edu writes:

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 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20060725/42dd41a9/attachment.htm