Mark of the beast lawsuit by Amish

[Michael R. Masinter]

I tried to find within the complaint nonconclusory allegations that  
USDA used its spending powers to compel Michigan to adopt mandatory  
tagging, but on what I concede to be a cursory read, I didn't see much  
there.  But I agree with Doug that if the allegation is true, RFRA  
should apply.

Assuming Michigan construes its free exercise clause along the lines  
of Sherbert-Yoder, doesn't Pennhurst construe the eleventh amendment  
to bar federal courts from hearing claims against state officials for  
injunctive relief to compel compliance with the state constitution?   
Has Michigan waived that aspect of its eleventh amendment immunity?

Michael R. Masinter                      3305 College Avenue
Professor of Law                         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
Nova Southeastern University             954.262.6151 (voice)
masinter at nova.edu                        954.262.3835 (fax)

Visiting Professor of Law (2008-2009)    305.284.3626 (voice)
University of Miami Law School           mmasinter at law.miami.edu
1311 Miller Drive
Coral Gables, FL 33146


Quoting Douglas Laycock <laycockd at umich.edu>:

>
>
> It isn't clear from the story whether this is something Michigan did  
>  wholly on its own, or whether it is a condition of some federal   
> grant although not formally mandated.  If it's a conditional   
> spending program, I would treat the feds as responsible.
>
> Michigan appears to have interpreted its own free exercise clause to  
>  mean something like Sherbert-Yoder instead of Smith, although the   
> cases are far from perfectly clear.
>

> Douglas Laycock
> Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
> University of Michigan Law School
> 625 S. State St.
> Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
>   734-647-9713
>