Court upholds prison no-pork policy against Establishment Clause challenge

Ira Lupu iclupu at law.gwu.edu
Thu Apr 12 13:35:31 PDT 2012


Avoiding litigation (and there are many, many RLUIPA and free exercise
cases about prison diets) and other forms of conflict, and having the
efficiencies of a uniform diet for all prisoners, sound like secular
purposes to me.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:34 PM, West, Ellis <ewest at richmond.edu> wrote:

>  Although the District Court may be correct in saying that the primary
> purpose of the policy is not “to establish the religion of Islam” or to
> “promote the practice of Islam,” it does concede that the policy “makes
> accommodating a multitude of religious practices and beliefs easier and
> more economical.”  Would someone explain to me how that purpose and/or
> effect is “secular” in nature?  Even though Prof. Lupu may be correct in
> saying that this particular policy is good way of accommodating religious
> beliefs/practices, his comment simply assumes that a policy of
> accommodating religious beliefs/practices is secular in nature.  How so?**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> Ellis M. West****
>
> Emeritus Professor of Political Science ****
>
> University of Richmond, VA 23173****
>
> 804-289-8536****
>
> ewest at richmond.edu****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 11, 2012 7:32 PM
>
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> *Subject:* Re: Court upholds prison no-pork policy against Establishment
> Clause challenge****
>
> ** **
>
> Is this outcome surprising in any way?  Does anyone on the list believe
> that the court got this wrong? (I certainly don't).****
>
> ** **
>
> If Congress overrode HHS and eliminated pregnancy prevention services from
> mandatory coverage by employers under the Affordable Care Act, wouldn't the
> analysis be just the same (imposition of a uniform policy to avoid
> religious conflict, avoid any need to create controversial exceptions for
> religious entities, avoid piece-meal litigation, and ease administration of
> the overall scheme), even though the impetus for change derived from a
> demand by some for religious accommodation?****
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu>
> wrote:****
>
> River v. Mohr (N.D. Ohio Apr. 5, 2012),
> http://volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/RiversvMohr.pdf .  ****
>
>  ****
>
> 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.****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Ira C. Lupu
> F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law
> George Washington University Law School
> 2000 H St., NW
> Washington, DC 20052
> (202)994-7053
> My SSRN papers are here:
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg****
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>



-- 
Ira C. Lupu
F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law
George Washington University Law School
2000 H St., NW
Washington, DC 20052
(202)994-7053
My SSRN papers are here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20120412/760aeea7/attachment.html>


More information about the Religionlaw mailing list