Not yet determined. Almost certainly on the March argument calendar.
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Marc Stern <ste...@ajc.org> wrote: > Does anyone know who is going to brief first(upside),and who is going to > brief second (downside in the contraception cases? Or is each case going to > brief on the normal schedule? The docket sheet said nothing late yesterday > on this subject. > Marc > -----Original Message----- > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 12:35 AM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: RE: Rights of corporations and RFRAs > > I think that's right, partly because the burden on stockholders of > selling shares in a publicly traded corporation is much less than the > burden of selling shares in a closely held corporation. > > Eugene > > -----Original Message----- > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Brownstein > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 3:50 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: RE: Rights of corporations and RFRAs > > I think there is considerable force to Eugene's argument about closely > held corporations (although I'm not sure if the size of the enterprise > needs to be taken into account too -- I'm still thinking about that.) Do I > take it from your argument that you believe a publicly traded corporation > would not be a useful stand-n for people? > > Alan > > -----Original Message----- > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 3:31 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Rights of corporations and RFRAs > > I've long thought that corporate rights make sense only to the > extent that they are useful for stand-ins for the rights of people. (I > support Citizens United precisely because of that.) > > And when it comes to closely held corporations, whose owners claim > an objection to participating in some activity, including by paying for it > or allowing it on their property, there are indeed rights of people > involved. > > A simple hypothetical: A law requires that all retail stores sell > lottery tickets. A store is owned by a corporation, which is in turn owned > by (say) two brothers; they believe that gambling is a sin, and that > facilitating gambling is a sin. (In that respect they are like Thomas in > Thomas v. Review Bd., who believed not only that he shouldn't go to war, > but also that he shouldn't help in warmaking.) The requirement, it seems > to me, burdens their religious practice, even though they own their > business through a corporate form. > > The corporate form is indeed a legal fiction, which is why I think > corporate rights should only be recognized a stand-ins for the rights of > people. But for the same reason burdens on people's religious practice > shouldn't be ignored by the law by invoking the fiction that the gas > station isn't really owned by the brothers but is instead owned by the > corporation. > > The only question, I think, should be whether the brothers would > have to sue under the relevant state RFRA in their own names, pointing to > the burden that the lottery sales mandate imposes on them, or whether they > could have the lawsuit be filed in the name of the corporation. But the > bottom-line result should be that the owners of the closely held > corporation could indeed assert a RFRA claim, whichever way it's done. > > Eugene > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, > unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, > unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. >
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
