Thanks Tom. I was about to ask a research assistant to do exactly that when it
occurred to me I might not need to reinvent the wheel and sent out the query to
check.
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Berg, Thomas C.
Sent:
Mary Ann, I don't know of any tabulation of all that information. You could get
some of it reasonably efficiently through the Becket Fund HHS information site,
http://www.becketfund.org/hhsinformationcentral. The entries for individual
cases in the case database list the named plaintiffs,
I'm not aware of any for-profits that have (yet) alleged that the
accommodation does not satisfy their RFRA claim. Anyone heard of any?
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c) <
hd...@virginia.edu> wrote:
> The only piece of information I’m aware of is that one of the
The only piece of information I'm aware of is that one of the government's
briefs in Zubik says there are only 87 of them.
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
From:
For purposes of a project I'm currently working on, I'm genuinely curious
whether any readers on the list think that there was a substantial burden
here. Paul Clement argued on behalf of the plaintiff's cause, and there
were a slew of amicus briefs, so I assume there's a serious dispute out
Sorry, meant to add the following to Point 3 (in bold):
3. Sterling's posting of the signs was (let’s assume--as the court did)
sincerely motivated by her religious beliefs, and the signs had religious
significance to her. *In particular, she testified that she "posted the
signs in the form of
Is there, as far as any of you know, any available compilation of background
factual data concerning all of the for profit objectors to the ACA
contraception mandate, including, for example, such information as their
religious affiliation, their corporate form, the familial relationships of
The Armed Forces Court of Appeals handed down an interesting RFRA decision
yesterday-- with an extensive discussion of the "substantial burden" prong as
well as some other unique issues:
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2016/08/armed-forces-court-of-appeals.html
Howard Friedman
