- 7 -
inconvenience. Guam v. Guerrero, 290 F.3d 1210, 1222 (9th Cir.
2002) (citing Worldwide Church of God v. Phila. Church of God,
Inc., 227 F.3d 1110, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000)).4
Petitioners present mere summary assertions that Rules 24
and 200 substantially burden their right to free exercise of
religion and fail to identify any aspect of their religion that
has been violated. At the hearing, petitioners sought to have a
religious adviser enter an appearance as their counsel. This
person was not an attorney, nor had he established his
qualifications by passing a written examination given by the Tax
Court, and the Court would not accept his formal appearance.
Nevertheless, the Court allowed petitioners’ religious adviser to
confer with petitioners at regular intervals throughout the
proceedings and to sit at petitioners’ counsel desk. Petitioners
stated that they had spoken with an attorney regarding this
matter, that the attorney was a member of the bar of the State of
Nevada, but that the attorney would have refused to pay the fee
4 RFRA originally defined the term “exercise of religion” as
“the exercise of religion under the First Amendment to the
Constitution”. 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000bb-2(4)(1994). The Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), Pub.
L. 106-274, 114 Stat. 803-807, currently codified at 42 U.S.C.
secs. 2000cc to 2000cc-5 (2000), amended certain provisions of
RFRA, including the definition of “exercise of religion”. RLUIPA
secs. 7(a)(3), 8(7)(a). RLUIPA amends RFRA so that “exercise of
religion” now means “religious exercise, as defined in section
2000cc-5 of this title.” 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000bb-2(4) (2000).
“Religious exercise”, for purposes of RFRA, is defined to include
“any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or
central to, a system of religious belief.” RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C.
sec. 2000cc-5(7)(A).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011