Petitions of the week

Issues:(1) Whether an accommodation that merely lessens or has the potential to eliminate the conflict between work and religious practice is reasonable per se, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 4th and 11th Circuits hold; does it instead create a jury question, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 8th and 10th Circuits hold; or must an accommodation fully eliminate the conflict in order to be reasonable, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 7th and 9th Circuits hold; (2) whether speculation about possible future burdens is sufficient to meet the employers burden in establishing undue hardship, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 5th, 6th and 11th Circuits hold, or must the employer demonstrate an actual burden, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 8th, 9th and 10th Circuits hold; and (3) whether the portion ofTWA v. Hardisonopining that undue hardship simply means something more than a de minimis cost should be disavowed or overruled.

Issues:(1) Whether using generally available historic preservation funds to repair or restore a house of worship constitutes a religious use that falls outside the scope ofTrinity Lutheran Church of Columbia Inc. v. Comer; and (2) whether the categorial exclusion of all active houses of worship from historic preservation grants violatesTrinity Lutheranand the First Amendment as an exclusion based on religious status.

Issue:Whether the categorical exclusion of active houses of worship from a competitive government grant program advancing the secular interest of historic preservation violates the free exercise clause of the Constitution of the United States.

Issue:Whether a criminal offense with a mens rea of recklessness qualifies as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e).