The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act "prohibits a state or local government from substantially burdening the religious exercise of an institutionalized person, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden furthers a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means available to further that interest." It is, in effect, the same as RFRA - the law on which the 'Hobby Lobby' decision rested.
I'm skeptical of both RFRA and RLUIPA, but this seems like a pretty open-and-shut case in favor of Holt, at least from the way this article describes it. Maybe the case is more nuanced than it seems.
What do you think? Read the full article here.
I'm skeptical of both RFRA and RLUIPA, but this seems like a pretty open-and-shut case in favor of Holt, at least from the way this article describes it. Maybe the case is more nuanced than it seems.
What do you think? Read the full article here.