December 26: Telecon - RLUIPA’s Land Use Provisions: Practice Points for Litigation Involving Jewish Institutions. #MCLE

From the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith 494 U.S. 872 (1990), until its decision in Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005), Congress and the Courts waged a 15 year battle over the constitutional and proper level of protection for Free Exercise rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This fight ended when the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) in Cutter.
This course examines the history of this conflict and the manner in which courts have interpreted the substantial burden and discrimination clauses of RLUIPA’s land use provisions. A particular focus will be on the manner in which the substantial burden provision is interpreted in light of the different beliefs of different religions and in particular how the courts have interpreted this provision in cases involving Judaism.
Title:
RLUIPA’s Land Use Provisions: Practice Points for Litigation Involving Jewish Institutions.
Note: While this program has been approved for credit on only 2 or 3 states, it may be eligible for credit under reciprocity or other provisions, as detailed below.
When/Where:
Thursday, December 26, 2014
3:00 PM Central Standard Time
Teleconference - Preregistration not required but it is highly advisable to review directions beforehand.
By:
Richard Clem Continuing Legal Education
Cost:
Absolutely free!
(If you need more credits, they are available from this provider for a modest fee. Please patronize providers of free CLE! - REW)
CLE Credit:

• Alaska: Alaska Bar members may claim credit for attendance at CLE programs offered in or from other states if the program has been accredited by another MCLE jurisdiction
• Arizona: The State Bar of Arizona does not accredit programs for the MCLE requirement. The Rules and Regulations are predicated on the assumption that attorneys can evaluate CLE activities offered based on the guidelines and report their activities by affidavit.
• Arkansas: Upon receipt of a completed certificate of attendance form confirming attendance at an out-of-state continuing legal education program approved by the situs state, the attorney shall be entitled to CLE credits in Arkansas.
• California: Program is eligible for California CLE credit only if the attorney is calling in from outside of California. The program cannot be taken for California credit if you call in from California.
• Colorado: Colorado attorneys should submit a Colorado Affidavit form along with a statement certifying that the CLE program is accredited in another mandatory CLE state.
• Florida: Courses approved by other state bars are generally acceptable for use toward satisfying CLE requirement but attorneys must first submit a CLE Application for Course Attendance Credit.
• Hawaii: Program is eligible for Hawaii CLE credit only if the attorney is calling in from outside of Hawaii. The program cannot be taken for Hawaii credit if you call in from Hawaii.
• Iowa: 1.0 CLE credit approved, each program. (Iowa activity numbers: 12/26 # 123311; 12/27 # 123310).
• Maine: Credit hours for activities approved by another MCLE state will be accepted for identical credit by the Board of Overseers of the Bar in Maine upon the Board's receipt of evidence of such certification as issued by that state
• Minnesota: 1.0 CLE credit applied for (Minnesota event codes: 12/26 # 186752; 12/27 # 186753).
• Montana: Montana will honor the approval given by other CLE jurisdictions. Simply attach documentation of the other state's approval to your affidavit at the end of the reporting year.
• New Jersey: New Jersey attorneys who are taking courses approved for CLE by another state will receive 1:1 credit for courses approved in that jurisdiction through reciprocity.
• New York: Attorneys may claim New York CLE hours if the program is accredited in Wisconsin.
• Wisconsin: 1.0 CLE credit applied for, each program.
• Washington State: You may apply for credit via online Form 1.
• Other States: CLE credit is available in many other states if the participating attorney applies for credit. For further information on reciprocity, see the Baran CLE Reciprocity Guide.

Speakers:

• The program will be presented by Rabbi Avraham Z. Cutler, Esq. Rabbi Cutler is the director of the Las Vegas Jewish Experience and heads the Community Kollel of Greater Las Vegas’s continuing legal education program. In that capacity he teaches lawyers and law students a wide variety of topics relevant to both Jewish and American law. Rabbi Cutler is also Of Counsel with the firm of Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., a midsize full practice law firm headquartered in New York City with affiliate offices in various cities throughout the United States and around the world. Rabbi Cutler is a member of the firm’s litigation and trusts and estates practice groups. Rabbi Cutler is the co-author of several legal scholarly articles, including: "DTD v. Wells: Historical Curiosity or Important Protection Against Judicial Blackmail?," which appeared in the May 2010 edition of Class Action Watch; and, "The Conflict Between the Circuits in Analyzing Joint Employment Under the FLSA: Why the Supreme Court Should Grant Certiorari in Zheng v. Liberty Apparel," which appeared in the June 2011 edition of Engage. Among Rabbi Cutler's notable cases are DTD v. Wells, 130 S.Ct. 7 (2009), the first Supreme Court opinion joined by Justice Sotomayor; and, Matter of Blaize v. Klein, 68 A.D.3d 759 (2nd Dept. 2009), which helped establish the principle that the New York Department of Education is bound by its own procedural rating rules, and that failure by the Department of Education to follow its published procedures in rating a teacher "unsatisfactory" was grounds for reversal of the unsatisfactory rating. Rabbi Cutler has consulted with religious organizations and other law firms on a wide variety of religious freedom issues including the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
• The programs will be moderated by attorney Richard P. Clem, who has a B.A. in history from the University of Minnesota, and a J.D., cum laude, from Hamline University School of Law. He has been in private practice in the Twin Cities for over 20 years. His reported cases include: Asociacion Nacional de Pescadores a Pequena Escala o Artesanales de Colombia v. Dow Quimica de Colombia, 988 F.2d 559, rehearing denied, 5 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1041 (1994); LaMott v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, 465 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); Abo el Ela v. State, 468 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).

More Information, Including How To Sign Into The Program, See:
http://www.richardclem.com/freecle.html