As for the first question, I think you're onto something: If the
government set up a Title X clinic in a retirement home run by Little
Sisters, despite the loud objections of Little Sisters, I doubt many people
would think Little Sisters was complicit in the use of the birth control
distributed
Could eminent domain be used to take an entire religious facility absent the
Pillar of Fire facts and assuming other suitable facilities could be found by
the religious group? I suppose so.
Could the government take a room within a religious facility and use it for
purposes thought sinful by
Eugene writes:
2. Zubik, like other RFRA cases, are – at least ostensibly – about
implementing Congress’s will, including its will in enacting RFRA. But
Congress, when it enacted RFRA, expressly took the view that religious
accommodation claims should be treated as akin to constitutional
I wrote a paper with Christopher Serkin arguing that RLUIPA should not be read
to provide protection against eminent domain — it might be helpful in answering
Mary Anne’s first question: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1328921
Nelson
On Apr 10, 2016, at 5:47 PM, Volokh, Eugene
Mary Anne Case asked:
1) Why does everyone on the Court seem so blithely to agree with Paul Clement
that for the government to take over a room in the Little Sisters' facility to
operate a Title X clinic, even if they paid market price for the room, would of
course be impermissible?
I've had the following questions about the Zubik oral argument which I'm hoping
the list can help with, since the passage of time has not led me to what I
assume are obvious answers:
1) Why does everyone on the Court seem so blithely to agree with Paul
Clement that for the government to
