Wednesday, April 27, 2005
This week the supreme court announced 4 decisions and granted cert in 5 more, but they are fairly boring and are not discussed further here. The major cases remain undecided.
I'm reading transcripts in Cutter v Wilkinson, an Ohio RayLupia case about religious accommodation for prisoners. I think these prisoners are satanists, which may not be the best choice of plaintiff tactically.
Page 19, line 6, "if he's killed in the line of duty there will be religious rights"
- they mean rites. Proofreading transcripts is always fun.
P 29 line 22. "Wonder bus" should be blunderbus.
Prediction: rlupia will be upheld as constitutional.
This is important, because it creates a way for some prisoners to have their human rights upheld some of the time. I'm involved with a case where a vegetarian was denied edible food for a month - rlupia provides a cause of action.
plaintiffs are Ohio prisoners who assert unconventional religious beliefs. Miller and other co-plaintiffs are followers of Asatru, a polytheistic religion that originated with the Vikings, and includes Thor as one of its gods. Gerhardt is an ordained minister of the Church of Jesus Christ Christian, a white supremacist group that espouses a belief that the races should be separated. Hampton is a Wiccan and practicing "witch," and co-plaintiff John Cutter is an avowed Satanist. All of them assert that Ohio prison regulations denying them access to religious literature and the opportunity to conduct religious services are violations of RLUIPA and the Ohio Constitution.
RLUIPA, signed by President Clinton in September 2000, bans government policies that substantially burden free exercise of religion by inmates and, in land-use cases, by a person or institution. The government, however, can gain an exemption if it can demonstrate it has a compelling interest and is using the least restrictive means to advance that interest.
However, the warden’s liability under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) does not parallel his liability under § 1983 for a corresponding First Amendment violation and RLUIPA implicitly authorized respondeat superior and supervisory liability where there has been a violation of RLUIPA. By its terms, RLUIPA does not preclude an award of relief against a supervisory official based upon a subordinate’s actions, unless such relief is not “appropriate.” In this case, the warden’s deliberate avoidance of any involvement in review of plaintiff’s grievance established sufficient “fault” – an adequate causal nexus to plaintiff’s injury – to support a finding of liability against him under RLUIPA
http://www.becketfund.org/
I'm reading transcripts in Cutter v Wilkinson, an Ohio RayLupia case about religious accommodation for prisoners. I think these prisoners are satanists, which may not be the best choice of plaintiff tactically.
Page 19, line 6, "if he's killed in the line of duty there will be religious rights"
- they mean rites. Proofreading transcripts is always fun.
P 29 line 22. "Wonder bus" should be blunderbus.
Prediction: rlupia will be upheld as constitutional.
This is important, because it creates a way for some prisoners to have their human rights upheld some of the time. I'm involved with a case where a vegetarian was denied edible food for a month - rlupia provides a cause of action.
plaintiffs are Ohio prisoners who assert unconventional religious beliefs. Miller and other co-plaintiffs are followers of Asatru, a polytheistic religion that originated with the Vikings, and includes Thor as one of its gods. Gerhardt is an ordained minister of the Church of Jesus Christ Christian, a white supremacist group that espouses a belief that the races should be separated. Hampton is a Wiccan and practicing "witch," and co-plaintiff John Cutter is an avowed Satanist. All of them assert that Ohio prison regulations denying them access to religious literature and the opportunity to conduct religious services are violations of RLUIPA and the Ohio Constitution.
RLUIPA, signed by President Clinton in September 2000, bans government policies that substantially burden free exercise of religion by inmates and, in land-use cases, by a person or institution. The government, however, can gain an exemption if it can demonstrate it has a compelling interest and is using the least restrictive means to advance that interest.
However, the warden’s liability under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) does not parallel his liability under § 1983 for a corresponding First Amendment violation and RLUIPA implicitly authorized respondeat superior and supervisory liability where there has been a violation of RLUIPA. By its terms, RLUIPA does not preclude an award of relief against a supervisory official based upon a subordinate’s actions, unless such relief is not “appropriate.” In this case, the warden’s deliberate avoidance of any involvement in review of plaintiff’s grievance established sufficient “fault” – an adequate causal nexus to plaintiff’s injury – to support a finding of liability against him under RLUIPA
http://www.becketfund.org/
Comments:
Post a Comment
