Document Type
Brief
Publication Date
9-15-2022
Abstract
No. 22-11674
Thai Meditation Association of Alabama, Inc. v. City of Mobile, Alabama
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama No. 1:16-cv-00395
From the Summary of the Argument
This Court already corrected the district court’s errant understanding of RLUIPA’s substantial-burden analysis once in this case. Unfortunately, a second correction is needed now.
In Thai Meditation Association’s first appeal, this Court explained that “the district court misread our opinion in Midrash” and, as a consequence, had erroneously required the Association to show that the government “completely prevent[ed]” its religious exercise in order to demonstrate a substantial burden. Thai Meditation Ass’n of Ala. v. City of Mobile (“Thai Meditation I”), 980 F.3d 821, 830 (11th Cir. 2020). This Court rejected that overly restrictive understanding of “substantial burden,” outlined how to evaluate burdens under the appropriate standard, and remanded the case for the district court to do so. See id. at 830–32.
Recommended Citation
Meiser, John A. and Matozzo, Francesca Genova, "Brief of Amicus Curiae Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Clinic in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants" (2022). Court Briefs. 39.
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/sct_briefs/39
Comments
The Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Clinic promotes and defends the freedom of religion or belief for all people. It promotes not only the freedom for individuals to hold religious beliefs but also their right to exercise those beliefs and to live according to them. It has represented individuals and organizations from an array of faith traditions in cases to defend the right to religious worship, to preserve sacred lands from destruction, and to prevent discrimination against religious believers. In addition to defending against infringements of religious freedom, the Religious Liberty Clinic seeks to ensure that critical legal protections for religious exercise—like those Congress enacted in RLUIPA—are faithfully interpreted and applied.
Table of Citations includes:
Sherif Girgis, Defining “Substantial Burden” on Religion and Other Liberties, 108 VA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2022) (manuscript), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3912126.