InnerChange Litigation

[Steven Jamar]

If the state had been doing it directly, the state could not  
reimburse itself, could it?

So it seems to me that seeking restitution here, in the absence of  
fraud, is wrong and the 8th Circuit is right -- howsoever lax the  
reasoning may be.

If PFM were representing that it would do one thing, and then did  
another (said it would not do anything religious and then did what it  
did), then restitution would be proper (the tort of fraud).  Short of  
that, it seems to me that PFM stands in the shoes of the state and it  
is hard to see who the state pays damages to here.

I have not looked up any of this -- just relying on my understanding  
of these principles from other, non-establishment contexts.

Steve


-- 
Prof. Steven D. Jamar                               vox:  202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law                     fax:  202-806-8567
2900 Van Ness Street NW                   mailto:stevenjamar at gmail.com
Washington, DC  20008	                         http://iipsj.com/SDJ/

"No place affords a more striking conviction of the vanity of human  
hopes than a public library."

Samuel Johnson, 1751


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20071205/d01c68b1/attachment.htm