Religious freedom and 42 USC 666

Volokh, Eugene VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu
Fri Aug 1 10:42:22 PDT 2008


        Perhaps this is indeed so on the facts of this particular case;
but I take it in a future case, there might be no tax refund to offset
this against, no?
 
    Eugene
 
 
 Eric Rassbach writes:


________________________________

	From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Rassbach
	Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 10:34 AM
	To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
	Subject: RE: Religious freedom and 42 USC 666
	
	

	It is worth noting that, although the opinion is a bit unclear,
the actual penalty imposed on Sherrod for failing to comply with the
lower court's order to send his child support payments to the state DHS
(in compliance with state laws required in turn by Section 666) appears
to be that he will have his federal income tax refund intercepted.  The
refund would be offset against the child support amounts he owes and
already agrees he should pay to his wife.  So arguably there's no burden
at all since he hasn't suffered any detriment for failing to cooperate
with the Section 666-inspired order.  And my guess is that intercepting
his tax refund is also more manageable for the government than changing
42 USC 666 to 42 USC 777 would be.  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20080801/e83cb310/attachment.htm 


More information about the Religionlaw mailing list