Podcasts about rluipa

On today's program, the Trump administration cancels grants to refugee aid agencies…despite legal battles. We'll take a look. And, a staggering 30 percent of nonprofits don't survive a full decade—but when they go under, what happens to their assets? Our finance writer Shannon Cuthrell digs into the hidden risks and loopholes of nonprofit dissolutions. And, we've released our MinistryWatch list of the 50 Christian ministries receiving the largest government grants.  But first, the U-S Department of Justice has intervened on behalf of a Pennsylvania church trying to expand. The producer for today's program is Jeff McIntosh. We get database and other technical support from Stephen DuBarry, Rod Pitzer, and Casey Sudduth. Writers who contributed to today's program include Kim Roberts, Jack Jenkins, Yonat Shimron, Jessica Eturralde, Shannon Cuthrell, Tony Mator, Bruce Buursma, Brittany Smith, and Christina Darnell. Until next time, may God bless you.   MANUSCRIPT:    FIRST SEGMENT Warren: Hello everybody. I'm Warren Smith, coming to you this week from Charlotte, North Carolina. Natasha:  And I'm Natasha Cowden, coming to you from Denver, Colorado, and we'd like to welcome you to the MinistryWatch podcast. Warren: On today's program, the Trump administration cancels grants to refugee aid agencies…despite legal battles. We'll take a look. And, a staggering 30 percent of nonprofits don't survive a full decade—but when they go under, what happens to their assets? Our finance writer Shannon Cuthrell digs into the hidden risks and loopholes of nonprofit dissolutions. And, we've released our MinistryWatch list of the 50 Christian ministries receiving the largest government grants. Natasha: But first, the U-S Department of Justice has intervened on behalf of a Pennsylvania church trying to expand. Warren: On March 3, the Justice Department section for the Western District of Pennsylvania filed a statement of interest supporting the Hope Rising Community Church in its lawsuit against the Borough of Clarion. The church has outgrown its current facilities and wants to expand using a facility in the city's commercial district. While Clarion allows nonreligious assemblies in the commercial district, such as theaters, the city would not approve the church's zoning use variance request. Officials from the city allegedly said they didn't “need any more churches” because of the loss of property taxes. Natasha: Hope Rising Community Church filed its lawsuit in November alleging the city was violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal law that protects houses of worship from discrimination in zoning. When Clarion filed a motion to dismiss the church's claim, the Justice Department intervened. Warren: The city argued the church had not suffered any concrete injury as a result of Clarion's actions, the DOJ argued that the city's zoning code has “stymied [the church's] efforts to buy and develop the only suitable property for the church in Clarion.” As of March 2024, the DOJ had opened over 155 formal investigations and filed nearly 30 lawsuits related to RLUIPA's Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) land use provisions, and had filed 36 “friend-of-the-court” briefs addressing the interpretation and application of RLUIPA in privately-filed lawsuits. Natasha: Next, The Trump Administration cancels grants to refugee aid agencies. Warren: President Donald Trump's administration is making moves to shutter a decades-old partnership between the government and a group of mostly religious organizations to resettle refugees, with the State Department abruptly canceling grant agreements with all the agencies despite ongoing legal battles. On Wednesday (Feb. 26), refugee resettlement organizations, such as Church World Service, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and the U.S.

On this episode of Mormonish Podcast, Rebecca and Landon are joined by attorney Kolby Reddish to discuss the possibility of the proposed Fairview TX LDS temple becoming a test case for RLUIPA in the higher courts. Drawing on an excellent blog post by Lisa Torcasso Downing, creator of the “Life Outside the Book of Mormon Belt” blog, we explore Dallin H. Oaks' involvement in the precursor to RLUIPA and RLUIPA itself. The LDS church has a history of pushing test cases to a higher court, and we consider this as a big picture possibility with the Fairview TX LDS Temple.“Life Outside the Book of Mormon Belt” by Lisa Torcasso Downinghttps://outsidethebookofmormonbelt.com/Previous Mormonish episode on RLUIPA referred to in this episode:https://youtu.be/NUwpGyCyrFc?si=Yj8f7LLgTwOFoQw2***How to DONATE to Mormonish Podcast: If you would like to help financially support our podcast, you can DONATE to support Mormonish Podcast here:DONATE THROUGH DONORBOXhttps://donorbox.org/mormonish-podcastMormonish Podcast is a 501(c) (3) https://donorbox.org/mormonish-podcast ****WE HAVE MERCH! **** If you'd like to purchase Mormonish Merch, you can visit our Merch store here: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mormonishmerch We appreciate our Mormonish viewers and listeners so much! Don't forget to LIKE and SUBSCRIBE to Mormonish Podcast. You can contact Mormonish Podcast at: mormonishpodcast@gmail.comFAIR USE DISCLAIMER All Media in this video (including the thumbnail) is used for the purpose of review and critique. The images in the thumbnail are used as the primary means of visually identifying the subject matter of the video.

On this episode of Mormonish Podcast, Rebecca and Landon are joined by attorney Kolby Reddish as we discuss RLUIPA, a key component in the Fairview LDS temple situation.RLUIPA stands for the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The LDS church uses this law to intimidate towns by insinuating that their zoning ordinances and laws are superseded by RLUIPA and the church can sue towns if they can't build the temple they want, even when it exceeds established zoning codes.But is this really the case? Our discussion in this episode digs into what RLUIPA actually says and what it allows. It's a complex issue but Kolby is able to shed some real light on the law and its uses. You won't want to miss this!***How to DONATE to Mormonish Podcast: If you would like to help financially support our podcast, you can DONATE to support Mormonish Podcast here: Mormonish Podcast is a 501(c) (3) https://donorbox.org/mormonish-podcast ****WE HAVE MERCH! **** If you'd like to purchase Mormonish Merch, you can visit our Merch store here: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mormonishmerch We appreciate our Mormonish viewers and listeners so much! Don't forget to LIKE and SUBSCRIBE to Mormonish Podcast! Contact Mormonish Podcast: mormonishpodcast@gmail.com FAIR USE DISCLAIMER All Media in this video (including the thumbnail) is used for the purpose of review and critique. The images in the thumbnail are used as the primary means of visually identifying the subject matter of the video.

Welcome to the first Pocket Park Episode! These episodes are shorter and focus on current events, stories, studies, etc, that are happening right now in the world. In this episode, Shelley and Mary, focus on a case in Brookings, Oregon that revolves around the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Will it have lasting impacts on religious institutions and land use across the United States? How can planners avoid situations where they get in hot water around the RLUIPA? What would constitute a time when the RLUIPA would be relevant? We get into it all! Sources from the episode:"Justice Department Files Statement of Interest in Religious Land Use Case Involving Oregon Church That Feeds People Who are Homeless or Hungry", US Dept. of Justice, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-statement-interest-religious-land-use-case-involving-oregon-church"The Quiet Religious-Freedom Fight that is Remaking America" The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/rluipa/543504/"Update on the Justice Department's Enforcement of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act: 2010-2016", US Dept. of Justice, https://www.justice.gov/d9/07-22-16_rluipa_report.pdf"RLUIPA Compliance Tips" APA Planning Magazine, https://www.planning.org/login/?next=/planning/2018/jan/legallessons/"What Constitutes a 'Substantial Burden' under RLUIPA?" Zoning Practice, https://www.planning.org/publications/document/9006935/Want to be a part of the podcast? Send in an email! The team behind the upcoming Better Planners podcast wants to hear from you about the real life issues you handle as a planner. What are the honest, gritty, wicked problems you find yourself managing? To share your experiences, email betterplannerspodcast@gmail.com Your message might end up in one of the upcoming podcast episodes. You can be as anonymous or as identifiable as you want. What is Better Planners?Better Planners is a podcast brought to you by the Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association (OAPA). It delves into deep conversations about relevant and timely stories surrounding the urban planning realm including the ground-level work of planners, community development advocates, and allied professions. With an emphasis on amplifying the voices and stories of marginalized communities. The episodes will be a resource and guide to provide insights into planning related topics people face on a daily basis that may be inspiring, challenging, questioning, and/or innovative. Where to find us:Website: https://oregon.planning.org/community/betterplannerspodcast/Instagram: @betterplanners

Thirty years ago today, President Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into law. It was a monumental event in religious liberty law at the time, and it remains part of an even more complex legal landscape of religious exemptions today. Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman look at the standard set by RFRA and discuss how the law has been used in cases dealing with issues ranging from sacramental drug use to application of health insurance regulations. They discuss the non-controversial applications of RFRA, too, and the search for win-win solutions to complicated situations that arise in a religiously pluralistic society.   SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): The need for and passage of RFRA Learn more about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) on BJC's website: BJConline.org/RFRA Holly wrote a column on RFRA for Word&Way's “A Public Witness” newsletter, and you can read it here: Revisiting RFRA 30 years later Read the text of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act at this link. Amanda mentioned these two “high water mark” cases in the period before 1990: Sherbert v. Verner (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). The 1990 Employment Division v. Smith is the case often known as the “peyote case.” We played audio from Justice Antonin Scalia reading the opinion of the Court from the bench, which you can listen to and read at this link. Watch the signing ceremony for RFRA on November 16, 1993, at this link on the YouTube channel of the William J. Clinton Presidential Library. Holly mentioned this printed resource available on our website, produced for the 20th anniversary of RFRA.    Segment 2 (starting at 14:16): Twists and turns of RFRA over 30 years Amanda mentioned the 1997 case that struck down RFRA as applied to the states: City of Boerne v. Flores. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) has the same standard as RFRA, but it has not been the subject of so many controversies. Holly and Amanda mentioned three other RFRA cases: Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal in 2006 (also known as the “UDV” case), Tanzin v. Tanvir in 2020, and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores in 2014. Holly wrote about the application of RFRA to corporations in light of the Hobby Lobby decision in 2014: Examining RFRA in light of Hobby Lobby J. Brent Walker, former executive director of BJC at the time, wrote about the Hobby Lobby decision in 2014: Exploring Hobby Lobby's narrow victory   Segment 3 (starting at 32:28): The state of RFRA today Here are additional resources from BJC providing more context on the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Podcasts: S1, Ep. 06: Stay-at-home orders, religious freedom and RFRA (2020) S1, Ep. 12: Not a charm: Contraceptive mandate returns to the Supreme Court for the third time (2020) S3, Ep. 03: What's going on with religious exemptions to COVID-19 vaccine mandates? (2021) Video: Watch this video of former BJC General Counsel Oliver “Buzz” Thomas discussing the origins of RFRA Resources from BJC on cases: Zubik v. Burwell (2016) Tanzin v. Tanvir (2020) Additional reading: Do states need religious freedom legislation? By J. Brent Walker, 2015 Contraceptive mandate oral arguments shed light on underreported issues by Holly Hollman, 2014 RFRA's constitutionality called into question by J. Brent Walker, 2014 RFRA at 20: A retrospective by Holly Hollman, 2013 Remembering the origins of RFRA by J. Brent Walker, 2013 Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC. 

In today's Sullivan County news roundup: State and local officials collaborate to aid those affected by a recent tornado. Delaware River Solar launches Meadow, a platform for easy access to clean, local energy. Sullivan schools hold budget votes and school board elections. Liberty town takes steps towards compliance with RLUIPA. Clean Path NY project aims for a healthier future climate. $3.6 million federal funding for Sullivan County Head Start. Catholic Charities hosts annual poster ceremony promoting drug-free living.

In today's episode of Interactions, we're going to talk about the r-i-t-e rite to death—the religious rites and rituals that accompany death, made particularly salient in death row cases. For this, we'll be looking at the case of Ramirez v. Collier.  In this case, John Ramirez, a Texas death row inmate, requested that he be permitted to have his pastor present at his execution, pray over him and lay hands on him. But Texas denied the request, and the case went to the Supreme Court. The question became whether Texas's denial represented a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and a violation of RLUIPA. In this interview, we ask the question: What rights do religious inmates have on death row?  In this second episode of our two-part series, we talk to Peter Wosnik, the owner and founder of https://wosniklaw.com/ (Wosnik Law, LLC), which is a trial-based law firm serving the Metro Atlanta area. Wosnik is also a graduate of Emory University School of Law (Juris Doctor) and Candler School of Theology (Master of Theological Studies), where he received the Savage-Levey scholarship in law and religion. Listen now.

Imagine your house of worship is facing destruction and your elected officials could stop it, but they were more concerned with how others view your sacred space. That's the scenario facing the San Carlos Apache and other tribes in their fight to preserve their sacred land of Chí'chil Biłdagoteel, loosely translated in English as “Oak Flat.” In this podcast, learn more about this issue facing our Indigenous neighbors and how you can use your position to make a difference and save sacred land. Just because a religious group doesn't build a steeple, it doesn't mean the sacredness of the land is any less than a church or mosque or other worship site.   Show notes: Segment 1: Land use and religious freedom (segments starts at 01:12) RLUIPA is an acronym for the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which became law in 2000. Starting at 12:17, we played audio of congressional testimony from Naelyn Pike, a youth Apache Leader. She gave this testimony on March 12, 2020, during a hearing of the Subcommittee on Indigenous Peoples of the United States in the U.S. House of Representatives. You can watch the entire hearing at this link, and her testimony begins at 8:21 in that video.   Segment 2: How did we get here? Sweetheart deals in the NDAA (starting at 18:03)  NDAA stands for the “National Defense Authorization Act,” which is the bill that authorizes the annual budget and expenditures of the U.S. Department of Defense.  The Save Oak Flat Act is H.R. 1884/S. 915.  Learn more about Chí'chil Biłdagoteel and the Save Oak Flat Act, including social media posts you can share, at BJConline.org/SaveOakFlat. The individual petition you can sign will be linked on that page in the near future. Read the letter from more than 100 religious and religious freedom groups sent to Congress asking to Save Oak Flat. If you would like to contact your members of Congress about co-sponsoring the Save Oak Flat Act, here is a sample script you can use: Hello, my name is [Name]. I am a constituent and am calling to ask Representative/Senator [Name] to co-sponsor the Save Oak Flat Act. Oak Flat is an ancient sacred site for the Apache and several other tribes in the Southwest. The federal government is giving the land to a foreign mining operation that will totally destroy this holy ground. Oak Flat's sacredness is not lessened because their tradition does not build a steeple to mark it. Will Rep./Sen. [Name] co-sponsor the Save Oak Flat Act? Not sure who your members of Congress are? Click here to find out.   Segment 3: What can you do to Save Oak Flat? (starting at 34:18) See a list of 18 ways you can advocate for Oak Flat in this piece by BJC Associate General Counsel Jennifer Hawks on Medium: Celebrate Earth Day 2022 by protecting Oak Flat Learn more about the Oak Flat Challenge in this article on Medium: What does 1.8 have to do with faith freedom for all? See examples of the Oak Flat Challenge on Facebook here and in our Instagram highlight here.  Hear from Indigenous voices on faith freedom this summer in Dallas at our BJC Luncheon. On Thursday, June 30, we'll be at the Hyatt Regency Dallas, and you can learn more and purchase a ticket at BJConline.org/Luncheon. Plus, we'll be doing a live recording of the Respecting Religion podcast on June 29 during our workshop at the CBF General Assembly. There is no cost to attend the assembly in Dallas – learn more at this link.  As always, you can contact Amanda and Holly by writing to RespectingReligion@BJConline.org.   Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC. 

Texas's rule against pastor laying hands on and praying with a prisoner in his final moments during a state execution is a violation of the religious land use and institutionalized persons act of 2000.Support the show

It's been quite the week for the Supreme Court, releasing a decision in a case we were watching and responding to the unprecedented leak of a draft opinion in a case that captured the attention of the entire country. In this episode, Holly and Amanda break down Monday's ruling in Shurtleff v. Boston – about a city flying a Christian flag – and the recent decision in Ramirez v. Collier – concerning religion in the execution chamber. They also react to the big Supreme Court news this week: the leak of a draft opinion for Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the case challenging a Mississippi law that restricts abortion. Amanda and Holly share their reactions to what's happening at the Court and preview what's to come.    SHOW NOTES Segment 1: The leaked Dobbs draft opinion and a decision in Shurtleff v. Boston (segments starts at 00:55, the discussion of Shurtleff begins at 8:16) Josh Gerstein and Alexander Ward of Politico broke the story with the leaked draft opinion: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows Amanda and Holly discussed Shurtleff v. Boston on two previous episodes this season: They previewed the oral arguments in episode 8 and reviewed the arguments – and made predictions – in episode 10. Read the Supreme Court's opinion in the case, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, and the concurring opinions at this link.   Segment 2: Say “yes” unless you have a really good reason to say “no” (starting at 23:41)  The Supreme Court issued its decision in Ramirez vs. Collier on March 24. Amanda and Holly discussed the case in episode 2 and episode 4. Read the Supreme Court's decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the concurring opinions and Justice Clarence Thomas's dissent at this link. “RLUIPA” is shorthand for the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which became law in 2000. The new filing from a district attorney in Ramirez v. Collier is discussed in this New York Times article by Ruth Graham: Days After Setting an Execution Date, a Texas Prosecutor Reverses Course   Segment 3: A rich holiday season (starting at 38:45) Amanda and Holly mentioned this article by Adelle Banks in Religion News Service: Second gentleman Doug Emhoff touts ‘critical' interfaith collaboration As always, you can contact Amanda and Holly by writing to RespectingReligion@BJConline.org. Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC. 

A daily news briefing from Catholic News Agency, powered by artificial intelligence. Ask your smart speaker to play “Catholic News,” or listen every morning wherever you get podcasts. www.catholicnewsagency.com - Pope Francis will consecrate Russia and Ukraine to the Immaculate Heart of Mary this evening, entrusting the nations to Mary's help and protection amid the ongoing conflict there. The pope has asked everyone in the world to join him. The consecration itself will take the form of a prayer that Pope Francis will recite during a penitential service in Rome. If you want to join the pope at the beginning of the penitential service, the service will start at 5 pm Rome time. EWTN will broadcast the service on cable and online. If you want to join in praying with Pope Francis at the exact moment he is praying the prayer of consecration, that will likely happen closer to 6:30 pm Rome time, according to the pope. Your diocese or parish is likely organizing a gathering to pray it together. The text of the prayer can be found at our website, catholic news agency dot com. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/250786/what-time-is-the-consecration-of-russia-and-ukraine-find-out-here In an 8-to-1 ruling on Thursday, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of an inmate who requested that his pastor pray aloud and “lay hands” on him during his execution. The prisoner,who identifies as Christian, asked for his pastor to be present during his execution, originally scheduled for September 2021. The court's majority ruled that the prisoner was likely to prevail in his case under the RLUIPA, a law which provides that the government not impose “a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution.”The single dissenter, Justice Clarence Thomas, called the prisoner's claim “insincere.” https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/250784/supreme-court-inmate-pastor-during-execution The Archdiocese of Denver has investigated a reported miracle, and has determined that a statue of Saint Michael the Archangel was not, in fact, bleeding blood. A chemical analysis has determined that the red liquid on the statue was similar to nail polish. The statue belonged to a 57-year-old Catholic in the Denver suburb of Broomfield. After the investigation, the archdiocese said it “urges the faithful to exercise prudence in becoming involved with unapproved apparitions or alleged miracles.” https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/250783/denver-archdiocese-supposed-blood-on-st-michael-statue-similar-to-red-nail-polish Today is the Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord. This feast day celebrates the coming of the Angel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary, to announce to her the special mission God had chosen for her to be the mother of Jesus, His only son. Because this is a solemnity that falls during a Friday in Lent, Catholics should feel free to eat meat today. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/saint/solemnity-of-the-annunciation-of-the-lord-188 https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/250781/can-catholics-eat-meat-when-a-solemnity-falls-on-a-friday-during-lent Today the Church also celebrates Saint Dismas, also called the Good Thief, who was crucified alongside Jesus. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/saint/st-dismas-419

You're listening to this show on the old feed -- subscribe to "Respecting Religion" on its permanent feed so you don't miss any episodes! This was released November 18, 2021. Description: The Supreme Court brought the execution chamber into the courtroom as it heard arguments about the activities clergy can perform at the moment of death. Amanda and Holly share clips from the arguments in Ramirez v. Collier and discuss issues raised by the justices. From questions about sincerity of religious belief to the key laws that protect the religious exercise of prisoners, hear what the justices focused on and learn about the arguments made by both sides. In segment three, Amanda and Holly discuss the roles of pastors in cases like this and how churches connect with prisoners.    Show notes: Segment one (starting at 00:43): Amanda and Holly previewed the Ramirez v. Collier case in episode two this season — you can listen to that on your feed and access show notes at this link. This Texas Tribune article by Jolie McCullough provides a helpful overview of the case: U.S. Supreme Court weighs religion's place in the Texas death chamber. During the conversation, Amanda and Holly played clips from the oral arguments. You can listen to the entire argument at this CSPAN link. The clips played in this segment were: Justice Samuel Alito, starting at 16:52 in the oral argument. Chief Justice John Roberts, starting at 47:20 in the oral argument. To learn more about the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), visit BJConline.org/RLUIPA.     Segment two (starting at 19:11) Read the brief BJC joined in the Ramirez v. Collier case at this link. The clips from oral arguments played in this segment were: Justice Brett Kavanaugh, starting at 9:23 in the oral argument.  Justice Amy Coney Barrett, starting at 1:05:31 in the oral argument.  Justice Elena Kagan, starting at 1:26:32 in the oral argument.    Segment three (starting at 34:48) Amanda and Holly talked about this article by Robert Barnes in the Washington Post that shares background on the pastor at the center of the case: Supreme Court considers a minister's role at the time an inmate is put to death   Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC. 

The Supreme Court brought the execution chamber into the courtroom as it heard arguments about the activities clergy can perform at the moment of death. Amanda and Holly share clips from the arguments in Ramirez v. Collier and discuss issues raised by the justices. From questions about sincerity of religious belief to the key laws that protect the religious exercise of prisoners, hear what the justices focused on and learn about the arguments made by both sides. In segment three, Amanda and Holly discuss the roles of pastors in cases like this and how churches connect with prisoners.  Show notes Segment one (starting at 00:43): Amanda and Holly previewed the Ramirez v. Collier case in episode two this season — you can listen to that on your feed and access show notes at this link. This Texas Tribune article by Jolie McCullough provides a helpful overview of the case: U.S. Supreme Court weighs religion's place in the Texas death chamber. During the conversation, Amanda and Holly played clips from the oral arguments. You can listen to the entire argument at this CSPAN link. The clips played in this segment were: Justice Samuel Alito, starting at 16:52 in the oral argument. Chief Justice John Roberts, starting at 47:20 in the oral argument. To learn more about the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), visit BJConline.org/RLUIPA.   Segment two (starting at 19:11) Read the brief BJC joined in the Ramirez v. Collier case at this link. The clips from oral arguments played in this segment were: Justice Brett Kavanaugh, starting at 9:23 in the oral argument.  Justice Amy Coney Barrett, starting at 1:05:31 in the oral argument.  Justice Elena Kagan, starting at 1:26:32 in the oral argument.    Segment three (starting at 34:48) Amanda and Holly talked about this article by Robert Barnes in the Washington Post that shares background on the pastor at the center of the case: Supreme Court considers a minister's role at the time an inmate is put to death   Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC. 

QUESTION PRESENTED:1) Whether, consistent with the free exercise clause and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, Texas' decision to allow Ramirez's pastor to enter the execution chamber, but forbidding the pastor from laying his hands on his parishioner as he dies, substantially burden the exercise of his religion, so as to require Texas to justify the deprivation as the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling governmental interest; and (2) whether, considering the free exercise clause and RLUIPA, Texas' decision to allow Ramirez's pastor to enter the execution chamber, but forbidding the pastor from singing prayers, saying prayers or scripture, or whispering prayers or scripture, substantially burden the exercise of his religion, so as to require Texas to justify the deprivation as the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling governmental interest.DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)Sep 07 2021 | Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 7, 2021)Sep 07 2021 | Application (21A33) for a stay of execution of sentence of death, submitted to Justice Alito.Sep 07 2021 | Motion for leave to file amicus brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.Sep 08 2021 | Brief of respondent Collier, Bryan, et al. in opposition filed.Sep 08 2021 | Reply of applicant John H. Ramirez filed.Sep 08 2021 | Application (21A33) referred to the Court.Sep 08 2021 | Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED.Sep 08 2021 | The application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is granted. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The Clerk is directed to establish a briefing schedule that will allow the case to be argued in October or November 2021.Sep 09 2021 | This case is set for argument on Monday, November 1, 2021. Petitioner's brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support of petitioner or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Monday, September 27, 2021. Respondents' brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support of respondents, are to be filed on or before Friday, October 15, 2021. Petitioner's reply brief is due on or before 2 p.m., Monday, October 25, 2021.Sep 09 2021 | ARGUMENT SET FOR Monday, November 1, 2021.Sep 10 2021 | The parties are directed to submit briefs that address whether petitioner adequately exhausted his audible prayer claim under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The parties are also directed to address whether petitioner has satisfied his burden under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) to demonstrate that a sincerely held religious belief has been substantially burdened by restrictions on either audible prayer or physical contact. The parties are further directed to address whether the government has satisfied its burden under RLUIPA to demonstrate its policy is the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling government interest. Finally, the parties are directed to address the type of equitable relief petitioner is seeking, the appropriate standard for this relief, and whether that standard has been met here. See Hill v. McDonough, 547 U. S. 573, 584 (2006) (setting forth a four- factor test for equitable relief). The parties may address other relevant issues, avoiding repetition of discussion in prior briefing.Sep 13 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, John RamirezSep 13 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Bryan CollierSep 21 2021 | CIRCULATEDSep 22 2021 | Motion for leave to file Volume II of the joint appendix under seal filed by respondent Bryan Collier.Sep 22 2021 | Lodging proposal letter of respondents filed.Sep 22 2021 | Letter in opposition to respondents' lodging proposal filed by petitioner.Sep 23 2021 | Reply letter regarding lodging proposal filed by respondents.Sep 23 2021 | Sur-reply letter regarding respondents lodging proposal filed by petitioner.Sep 27 2021 | Joint appendix (Volume I) filed. (Distributed)Sep 27 2021 | Brief of petitioner John Ramirez filed. (Distributed)Sep 27 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of United States in support of neither party filed. (Distributed)Sep 27 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of First Liberty Institute filed. (Distributed)Sep 27 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Freedom From Religion Foundation, et al. in support of neither party filed. (Distributed)Sep 27 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Protect the First Foundation filed. (Distributed)Sep 27 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Alliance Defending Freedom filed. (Distributed)Sep 27 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Former Prison Officials filed. (Distributed)Sep 27 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Spiritual Advisors and Former Corrections Officials filed. (Distributed)Sep 27 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Christian Legal Society, et al. filed. (Distributed)Sep 27 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed. (Distributed)Sep 27 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Religious-Liberty Scholars Douglas Laycock, et al. filed. (Distributed)Sep 27 2021 | Brief amici curiae of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops filed. (Distributed)Sep 27 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Scholars of the PLRA and Prison Grievance Systems filed. (Distributed)Sep 29 2021 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit.Sep 29 2021 | Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument filed.Oct 01 2021 | Motion of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument filed.Oct 12 2021 | Motion for leave to file Volume II of the joint appendix under seal GRANTED.Oct 12 2021 | Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument GRANTED.Oct 12 2021 | Motion of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument DENIED.Oct 13 2021 | Respondents' September 22, 2021 lodging proposal approved, and submission of the non-record materials is requested by the Clerk.Oct 15 2021 | Brief of respondent Bryan Collier filed. (Distributed)Oct 15 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Arizona, et al., filed. (Distributed)Oct 15 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Maria Chavon Aguilar, Fernando Castro, Pablo Castro Jr., & Roberto Salcedo Jr. filed. (Distributed)Oct 15 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)Oct 19 2021 | Respondents' lodging material received (including redacted declaration for public record and the unredacted sealed declaration).Oct 22 2021 | ARGUMENT RESCHEDULED for Tuesday, November 9, 2021.Oct 25 2021 | Reply of petitioner John Ramirez filed. (Distributed)Nov 09 2021 | Argued. For petitioner: Seth Kretzer, Houston, Tex. For United States, as amicus curiae: Eric J. Feigin, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Judd E. Stone, II, Solicitor General, Austin, Tex.★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

On this episode, Maxwell Goss speaks with Daniel Dalton, the nation's foremost litigator representing churches and religious bodies in land use and real property disputes. Dan is the author of several books including Religious Property Disputes and the Law, published by the American Bar Association. Dan discusses a pair of important cases involving religious land use and the free exercise clause. Dan also provides insights for handling lawsuits against government entities. ---------- “Government entities always have the upper hand . . . They have the ability, through statute and through judicial creation, to do things that anywhere else in the world would be illegal.” -Daniel P. Dalton ---------- 00:19 – Introduction 01:43 – Daniel Dalton's law practice 03:48 – Daniel's latest book, Religious Property Disputes and the Law 05:26 – Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act (RLUIPA) 07:32 – Religious congregations separating from their denominations 09:34 – The Our Lady of Peace case 16:32 – The West Valley Christian Center case 22:14 – Litigating against a government agency vs. litigating against a corporation 25:43 – Dan's advice for lawyers suing a government entity 27:18 – Where to find Daniel online ---------- Daniel P. Dalton is the nation's preeminent authority in the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act, also known as RLUIPA. He is one of the country's most experienced attorneys in representing churches and other religious institutions in land use and zoning cases. Dan is the author of books including Religious Property Disputes and the Law and Litigating Religious Land Use Cases, published by the American Bar Association. Dan's firm, Dalton & Tomich, PLC, is the national leader in successfully helping churches, other religious institutions and their insurers defend their rights in land use and zoning matters under RLUIPA, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The firm has helped clients win cases against municipalities and other local government bodies from coast to coast, with experience serving both as general counsel and special litigation counsel. ---------- https://www.attorneysforlanduse.com/our-team/ (Daniel Dalton's Attorney Bio) https://www.americanbar.org/products/inv/book/415132237/ (Religious Property Disputes and the Law) https://www.americanbar.org/products/inv/book/252179232/ (Litigating Religious Land Use Cases) ---------- https://www.thelitigationwarroom.com/ (Show Website) https://twitter.com/LitWarRoom (Twitter) https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-litigation-war-room-podcast/ (LinkedIn) https://www.facebook.com/The-Litigation-War-Room-Podcast-111235441143108 (Facebook)

The Supreme Court is about to hear arguments in a type of case it usually addresses in its emergency or “shadow” docket: Questions surrounding clergy and religious exercise in the execution chamber. Amanda and Holly review the issue by considering cases over the past few years, including how the justices have shifted over time, with strong words from Justice Elena Kagan and the arrival of Justice Amy Coney Barrett. In segment two, they dive into the first religious liberty case the Court will hear oral arguments this term in Ramirez v. Collier (starting at 14:50), including the statute at the heart of the case: RLUIPA. In segment three, Amanda and Holly step back to discuss their personal experiences visiting death row early in their legal careers.   Show notes: Segment 1: Recapping the past few years of clergy in the death chamber (starting at 00:51) Visit the website of the Death Penalty Information Center for statistics and research around the death penalty and its application. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act is often abbreviated “RLUIPA.” Learn more at BJConline.org/RLUIPA. Visit the latest news section of our website to read about previous Supreme Court cases involving clergy in the execution chamber. Amanda Tyler wrote a 2019 column for Religion News Service about the different outcomes in the Dunn v. Ray (Alabama) and Murphy v. Collier (Texas) cases. Read it at this link.    Segment 2: SCOTUS takes a case about clergy in the execution chamber on its regular docket  (starting at 14:50) BJC joined this brief in the Ramirez v. Collier case with the Christian Legal Society and other groups. Read more on our website. Holt v. Hobbs was a 2015 case regarding a Muslim inmate's request to grow a one-half-inch beard in accordance with his faith. Learn more at BJConline.org/HoltvHobbs.   Segment three: Personal reflections on visiting death row (starting at 28:10) To learn more about the abolition of the death penalty in Virginia, check out this piece by Dakin Andone for CNN: Why Virginia's abolition of the death penalty is a big deal for the state and the US  Amanda read from this piece by Elizabeth Breunig for The Atlantic: The State of Texas v. Jesus Christ Linda Greenhouse asked the question “Why did the Supreme Court stop this particular execution?” in the New York Times. Adamp Liptak previewed the Ramirez case for the New York Times in this article: Supreme Court Stays Execution in Dispute Over Pastor's Role in Death Chamber Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC. 

You're listening to this podcast on our old feed. Search for "Respecting Religion" on this same podcast provider to find the current feed -- we won't be here much longer! The Supreme Court is about to hear arguments in a type of case it usually addresses in its emergency or “shadow” docket: Questions surrounding clergy and religious exercise in the execution chamber. Amanda and Holly review the issue by considering cases over the past few years, including how the justices have shifted over time, with strong words from Justice Elena Kagan and the arrival of Justice Amy Coney Barrett. In segment two, they dive into the first religious liberty case the Court will hear oral arguments this term in Ramirez v. Collier, including the statute at the heart of the case: RLUIPA. In segment three, Amanda and Holly step back to discuss their personal experiences visiting death row early in their legal careers. Subscribe to our new feed or visit https://bjconline.org/s3-ep-02-religion-in-the-execution-chamber/ for our show notes

Land use and zoning attorneys, Jennifer Fine and Stanley Price, discuss the approval process, standards of proof, RLUIPA, and how the first amendment relates to Religious Use Law.

John Mauck is a founding partner at Mauck & Baker and has been an attorney for over 40 years. He has represented many churches and ministries in Chicago and around the nation in their fight for religious land use in restricted areas of their city. John’s work drafting the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, also known as RLUIPA, which became federal law in 2000, has helped congregations across the country freely worship. Since 2000, John has personally been involved in around 100 RLUIPA cases.

After three years of litigation, Cornerstone Church by the Bay wins their case and can use their own property to minister to the community.  Learn more about how First Liberty defended this church against the south Texas city’s zoning laws by visiting FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. After three years of litigation, Cornerstone Church by the Bay wins their case and can use their own property to minister to the community.  The south Texas church, and the private school that it runs, purchased property that they hoped would allow them to leave their rented space and continue their ministry on their own property.  But, the city’s zoning laws were confusing.  It allowed non-religious institutions to occupy that part of town, but the zoning rules did not allow churches there.  When the church asked for a special use permit, the town’s Board of Aldermen denied the request, keeping churches from operating in that area. Left with no other option, Cornerstone turned to First Liberty.  We filed a lawsuit on their behalf alleging that the town’s zoning actions violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act along with the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  Not long after, the court granted our request for a preliminary injunction while the litigation continued.  But, the town has decided to quit that litigation. In settling with Cornerstone, the Town of Bayview agreed to issue the special use permit the church requested over three years ago.  Houses of worship have legal rights that must be respected by local government officials.  This church is now free to serve their community, on their own property, as every church should be. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Russell Moore interviews Pastor Nathan Carter of Immanuel Baptist Church in Chicago. Immanuel Baptist is facing unlawful zoning restrictions and seeks relief under The Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Act (RLUIPA). Also, Russell Moore's report to the 2017 Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention. Interview with Pastor Nathan Carter Chicago church sues over stalled building purchase – Baptist Press What is RLUIPA? – Mauck & Baker (representing Immanuel Baptist Church) Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Persons Act (2000) A bipartisan bill passed unanimously by both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Immanuel Baptist Church Event Capitol Conversations Live with ADF: Supreme Court Opinion in Trinity Lutheran Thursday June 29 • 7:00PM • Washington, DC Location: TBA (on or near Capitol Hill) Info and Registration Panelists include: Russell Moore – President, ERLC David Cortman – Litigator for Trinity Lutheran; ADF Kevin Smith, Executive Director, Baptist Convention of Maryland/Delaware Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler (MO-4) Previous podcast episode with Erik Stanley of ADF ERLC amicus brief (PDF) More case info at SCOTUSBlog Special thanks to SBC Tapes for providing the audio for this episode from SBC 2017. Subscribe here iTunes | Google Play | Stitcher | Tune in

On this episode, we talk religious free exercise law. There's the First Amendment, the RFRA, and the RLUIPA. Ex-Navyman Matthew Maxon helps me work on cursing like a sailor in reaction to all the frustrating aspects of the laws in this area. Check out Matthew and his co-host Erik Ryder on the Odd Atheist Friends podcast! https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/odd-atheist-friends-podcast/id1231136826?mt=2   https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnj5j9hnroP4S30LTB_H85w     OAF on Twitter: @OAFPodcast   Matthew's Twitter: @MaxonMS   Erik's Twitter: @ErikArthurRyder   Subscribe to Habeas Humor on iTunes: https://itun.es/us/sms5hb.c Subscribe on Stitcher: http://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=140194&refid=stpr Email the show: HabeHumor@gmail.com Twitter: @habeashumor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/habeashumor/ Please note that this podcast is for entertainment only and does not constitute legal advice or form an attorney-client relationship. 

American law has many protections of religious freedom. Among these are various means by which religious people and organizations can seek exemptions from otherwise-applicable legal requirements when those rules would burden their religious beliefs. This episode discusses the development of those exemptions under the First Amendment, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and state versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.Here are some of the legal documents Josh discusses in the episode: Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) Employment Div., Ore. Dept. of Human Res. v. Smith 494 U.S. 872 (1990) Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014) Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015) Religious Freedom Restoration Act Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act Subscribe to the Law Meets Gospel Podcast iTunes Google Play RSS Support the Law Meets Gospel Podcast Patreon.com Sign up to contribute an amount you choose for each episode the Law Meets Gospel Podcast publishes.

The latest on Planned Parenthood Latest video from Center for Medical Progress A Quick And Easy Guide To The Planned Parenthood Videos – The Federalist (2015) California Wants To Imprison Pro-Lifers For Committing Journalism – The Federalist Congress Overturns a Rule that Forced States to Fund Planned Parenthood – ERLC's The Weekly Pence breaks tie in Senate vote targeting Planned Parenthood funding – Politico Representative Diane Black and Senator Joni Ernst on H.J. Res. 43 – Washington Examiner Why it's so difficult to defund Planned Parenthood – ERLC.com The “1 Thing Thing” Predatory payday lending: 2014 SBC Resolution and Predatory lending content at ERLC.com Chicago church sues over stalled building purchase – Baptist Press What is “RLUIPA”? – Justice.gov Solution Sundays featured on CNN with Sens. Tim Scott (SC) and James Lankford (OK)

Using the Hobby Lobby and Holt v. Hobbs Supreme Court decisions as a starting point, the panel will discuss the challenges of valuing religion in law, addressing such questions as: Do court decisions in cases such as Hobby Lobby and Holt v. Hobbs serve or undermine religious pluralism? When are religious exemptions to laws that apply generally to everyone warranted? How ought religious liberty be weighed against other rights (e.g., equal protection of the laws—LGBT rights)? How do the Supreme Court Justices' opinions reflect the broader societal arguments about what counts as “religious exercise” and whether or how religion is valued in public spaces? Panelists: Matthew Scherer, George Mason University Winnifred Sullivan, Indiana University Mark Silk, Trinity College Barbara A. McGraw, Saint Mary’s This audio was recorded at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion on Sunday, November 22.

Many are confused by the hype and hysteria surrounding RFRA -- the Religous Freedom Restoration Act, passed unanimously on the Federal level and signed into law by Bill Clinton. Why the hysteria over a similar act passed this year in Indiana? Why do both state AND federal RFRAs exist? And what is RLUIPA? Kim Colby, who has been involved in religious liberty work for close to 35 years, answers these questions and more in our discussion. Kimberllee Wood Colby is Senior Counsel and the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom.  Mike Schutt is CLS's director of the Institute for Christian Legal Studies and a visiting professor at Trinity Law School in Santa Ana, California.