Illinois Appellate Court holds that the state RFRA doesn't apply to judicial decisions, Marsaw v. Richards, 2006 WL 2715266 (Sept. 22)

[Vance R. Koven]

The court's discussion of this subject was quite cursory and
unsatisfactory. Basically, it said, of the argument that a court
decision is itself government action,  "it's never been raised before,
so we won't consider it." It's not exactly an ancient statute, so
courts should be prepared to deal with cases of first impression.

In the context of this being the case's third visit to the Appellate
Court, one might understand a lack of patience, but the court's
"analysis" was deeply flawed. Even if a court decision, by itself,
isn't "government action" within the meaning of RFRA (and I don't
concede that point), why shouldn't the claim be read as one under the
Illinois nonprofit corporation law, which the moving party was asking
not be construed or enforced in a way that would impinge on religious
exercise?

On 9/27/06, Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu> wrote:
>         Illinois Appellate Court holds that the state RFRA doesn't apply
> to judicial decisions, Marsaw v. Richards, 2006 WL 2715266 (Sept. 22).
>
>         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.
>


-- 
Vance R. Koven
Boston, MA USA
vrkoven at world.std.com