Iqbal and the Free Exercise Clause

[Brownstein, Alan]

Good question. There is certainly some range of opinions on whether a law that requires a lot of individualized applications or exceptions is sufficiently general for Smith purposes.  Also, legislative accommodations of religion that do not reach all faiths may not be intentionally discriminatory.  I also think it is possible to be perceived as creating a "religious gerrymander" without deliberately intending to do so.

Alan Brownstein

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of ArtSpitzer at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:33 AM
To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Iqbal and the Free Exercise Clause

When would a law that's not neutral or not generally applicable not also be intentionally discriminatory?  Can a legislature negligently or unknowingly enact a law that's not neutral or not generally applicable?

Art Spitzer


**************
Dinner Made Easy Newsletter - Simple Meal Ideas for Your Family. Sign Up Now! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221991367x1201443283/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215225819%3B37274678%3Bs%3Fhttp:%2F%2Frecipes.dinnermadeeasy.com%2F%3FESRC%3D622)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20090527/1657d4ac/attachment.htm>