Issue 8

Incarceration, Accommodation, and Strict Scrutiny

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) requires the application of strict scrutiny to policies substantially burdening the religious exercise of prisoners. Although RLUIPA was passed without dissent, critics and commentators have tended to accept three skeptical claims about the use of strict scrutiny in this context: (1) changes in the formal level of scrutiny applicable to claims for religious accommodation are irrelevant to case outcomes; (2) even the most sympathetic statutory language will not improve prisoners’ chances of success in seeking accommodations; (3) using the language of strict scrutiny in prison cases will diminish its force in other areas of the law. 

This Note challenges these skeptical conclusions. Since RLUIPA was passed in 2000, federal courts have reviewed hundreds of claims brought by prisoners seeking accommodations. Some federal circuit courts have continued to defer to the judgment of prison administrators when denying exemptions. Other federal courts, however, are employing a more rigorous form of review, taking a “hard look” at prison policies that burden religion, and reviewing carefully the claims of prison administrators. Moreover, rather than diluting strict scrutiny in other areas of the law, these courts are using doctrine from outside of the accommodation context to resolve prisoner claims. The emergence of a searching form of review in the prison context is surprising. After detailing an emerging conflict among the federal courts of appeal, this Note argues that firm constitutional footing, statutory specificity, and the importation of searching review from equal protection and free speech cases all help to explain this unexpected development. This Note concludes with some thoughts about how proponents of religious accommodation should proceed in light of the limited but real success of RLUIPA.

The State of State Anti-takeover Law

This Article is the first to examine systematically state antitakeover law outside Delaware. It conducts a research of all available cases to find whether states with pill endorsement and other constituency statutes follow Delaware’s enhanced fiduciary duties or replace them with weaker standards. It finds substantial variations from Delaware’s law. 

Unlike Delaware, most of the states with relatively strong other constituency and pill endorsement statutes do not impose enhanced fiduciary duties on managers in change-of-control situations. Instead, they apply only the ordinary business judgment rule to management’s use of antitakeover tactics.

This Article has implications for antitakeover law, the market for corporate law, and the desirability of federal intervention. In particular, it provides support for adopting Delaware’s enhanced fiduciary duties—Unocal, Revlon, and Blasius—as federally imposed minimum standards. This would not only improve state antitakeover law outside Delaware, but may also result in improvements to Delaware law since Delaware is currently dragged down by other states.

Making Good on Good Intentions

Recent employment discrimination law has focused on proposals to make it easier for plaintiffs to win Title VII cases when the circumstances underlying their claims are ambiguous. While some of the proposals are sound, they fail to take into account the costs of further legal presumptions and controls on people’s commitment to nondiscrimination goals – or what the article calls “good intentions.” Without such attention, reform efforts will gravitate toward strategies that (1) short-circuit the fundamental causation requirements of Title VII, increasing the risk of false positives and associated anxieties, (2) create a surveillance mentality, and (3) reduce people’s sense of autonomy, competence, and connectedness. The article brings together several strands of social science research to show that these effects weaken workplace trust, legitimacy, and acceptance of nondiscrimination norms. Although the increased pressure may produce compliance in the short term, the article contends that it may also undermine the affirmative commitment necessary over the long term to change the attitudes and beliefs that lead to present-day discrimination. Continued positive change requires not only strong nondiscrimination norms, but also conditions enabling people to internalize those norms. What promotes, or defeats, norm internalization is not an exact science, and is complicated by differences in individual and workplace circumstances. The article reviews the relevant social science literature and evaluates legal and workplace strategies for reducing workplace discrimination in light of it.

©Virginia Law Review Association. All rights reserved.