beings. The employer contracts for
those services and pays for those services, and these employers say they
cannot in conscience do those things.
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 19:46:50 -0400
Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote:
Fortunately, the question here is far, far removed from whether
to add to the page:
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/essays/resources-and-background-on-contraception-and-conscience
Thanks,
Marty
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.comwrote:
Please excuse the plug. I hope this is something that those of you in the
D.C
in any way the employee chooses.
** **
Mark
** **
** **
** **
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 03, 2012 7:49 AM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject
...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 03, 2012 11:17 AM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
If I understand the Catholic doctrine, Doug, in your hypothetical the
church will have *chosen* to save the $200,000 by having the kids dumped.
That would be a form of (presumptively prohibited) formal cooperation with
evil.
But here, the state has eliminated the choice. (Well, not quite --
wasn’t serious about
its religious mission. That seems to me (and it seemed to the Court) to be
a mistake.
** **
Best, Chris
** **
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 03
Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
** **
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Wednesday
...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 03, 2012 4:57 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Cc:* M Cathleen Kaveny
*Subject:* Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
** **
Doug: Is it actually
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Yeshiva University
55 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
(212) 790-0215
hamilto...@aol.com
-Original Message-
From: Marty Lederman
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Wed, Oct 3, 2012 10:04 am
, I
am leery of reading the notion of substantial out of the jurisprudence,
so that any burden is substantial if any religious believer claims it is.
Take care, and special thanks to Marty for organizing such a wonderful
conversation!
Best,
Cathleen
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Marty Lederman
I think we probably all agree that the RLIUPA claim here should and will
fail, because of the compelling prison interest in not so selectively
rendering such a universally desired accommodation.
And for just that reason, I can't imagine any prison *voluntarily *allowing
religiously motivated
conjugal visits discriminate in
the allocation of a constitutionally protected activity -- i.e., the right
of intimate association?
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 6:41 AM, Marty Lederman
lederman.ma...@gmail.comwrote:
I think we probably all agree that the RLIUPA claim here should and will
fail, because
This one, involving the assessment of denominational discrimination
post-Marsh v. Chambers:
http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Galloway_v_Town_of_Greece_681_F3d_20_2d_Cir_2012_Court_Opinion
___
To post, send message to
I'm surprised there hasn't been more attention paid to the quite remarkable
dissent that Justice Alito filed in Windsor. In it, he contrasts two
competing views of marriage: what he calls the conjugal view, in which
marriage is the solemnizing of a comprehensive, exclusive, permanent union
that
do so.
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Marty Lederman
lederman.ma...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm surprised there hasn't been more attention paid to the quite
remarkable dissent that Justice Alito filed in Windsor. In it, he
contrasts two competing views of marriage: what he calls the conjugal
AM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
As a couple of you have pointed out to me, Judge Posner has addressed the
Alito dissent; in Slate (
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2013/supreme_court_2013
Doug Laycock has just posted this very interesting article to SSRN on
Religious Liberty and the Culture Wars that I recommend (though I would
certainly take issue with parts of it):
http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2304427
Doug's piece prompted me to wonder about a non-substantive point, however,
OK, here's an effort to get us back on the track (of the current circuit
split):
What Doug wrote was that there was a common understanding that RLPA would
protect for-profit *businesses* from civil rights claims *that **substantially
burdened the owner’s free exercise of religion*.
Now, it's not
, Marty Lederman
lederman.ma...@gmail.comwrote:
Perhaps it's a minor point, and I'm very reluctant ever to disagree with
Chip!, but neither Braunfeld nor Lee involved free exercise claims by
businesses, let alone corporations. The free exercise claims in each case
were brought
Actually, in order to make the hypothetical analogous to these cases . . .
well, it really can't be made analogous, because providing a health
insurance plan that covers all recognized medical treatments without
exception can't be analogized to choosing to use slave labor in any serious
moral
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
The government *is *relying upon women's equality -- not only health -- as
one of the compelling interests. This makes sense, since presumably most
(but not all) employees would pay for contraception ut of pocket, rather
than go without.
As for whether an employer's failure to cover
I assume this is the letter, although it does not specifically address the
removal of substantial:
http://txvalues.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Professor-Support-Texas-Religious-Freedom-Amedment-Senate-version.pdf
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 9:03 AM, hamilto...@aol.com wrote:
When a new TRFRA
Doug may well be right that for most lower courts (but not all -- see
Michael Masinter's post), whether the term burden is modified by
substantial will not matter, because such courts inevitably end up
balancing the degree (or nature) of the burden on religious exercise --
indeed, the degree of
Eugene writes: Even in the face of this caselaw, and the argument that
such preference for religion makes the statute unconstitutional, the Court
can’t read RFRA the same way [as courts have read the title VII and
conscientious objector statutes], but is instead compelled to read it in a
way that
:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Tuesday, December 03, 2013 8:40 AM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: RFRA, the Establishment Clause, and saving constructions
Eugene writes: Even in the face of this caselaw, and the argument
) 577-9016 (fax)
Website—http://law.wayne.edu/profile/christopher.lund/
Papers—http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=363402
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Tuesday, December 03
The Court did not realign any of the parties (somewhat to my surprise), but
consolidated amici briefing. Therefore:
-- SG brief in HL, and CW brief in CW, are due Friday, Jan. 10
*-- All amici, supporting any side, due Tuesday, Jan. 28* [shades of green
on color of briefs TBD, perhaps sometime
shall bear a dark green cover. An
amicus curiae may file only a single brief in case Nos. 13-354 and 13-356.
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.comwrote:
The Court did not realign any of the parties (somewhat to my surprise),
but consolidated amici briefing
Since no one else has mentioned it, I will:
Eugene recently published a remarkable series of posts on the case -- so
much there that virtually everyone on this listserv is sure to agree with
some arguments and disagree with others. It's an amazing public service,
whatever one thinks of the
about it. Thanks,
Eugene
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [
mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edureligionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
*On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Monday, December 16, 2013 10:53 AM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject
I apologize for not responding right away, but I'm slammed with other
stuff. There is a lot to say here, and I think it's important -- Eugene is
raising some good questions. I'll try to respond in the next day or so; in
the meantime, I'm very grateful for all the reactions, both supportive and
Sorry it took so long. My response to Eugene and others raising the same
question is here:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-iii-adoes-federal-law.html
As always, I welcome any critiques/suggestions from list-members, thanks.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Marty Lederman
See
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1073407
Of course, if a statute incorporates a constitutional test that, according
to the Court, had required it to do things no article III court could do --
which is one reading of Smith, namely, that application of the
Sherbert/Yoder test was beyond the
Another post, this one about the nonprofit cases that have now wound their
way to the Court . . .
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/01/not-quite-hobby-lobby-nonprofit-cases.html
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.comwrote:
Since no one else has mentioned it, I
The government's brief in *Little Sisters*:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/01/government-bref-in-little-sisters.html
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.comwrote:
Another post, this one about the nonprofit cases that have now wound their
way to the Court
, certification or not, the employees will
not receive the services to which the employer objects? Something is missing
from this narrative.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 3, 2014, at 10:56 AM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote:
The government's brief in Little Sisters:
http
...@aol.com wrote:
Marty-- could you please elaborate on your response? I am not following
this exchange
Thanks--
Marci
Marci A. Hamilton
Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
Yeshiva University
@Marci_Hamilton
On Jan 3, 2014, at 12:43 PM, Marty Lederman
Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School
Yeshiva University
@Marci_Hamilton
On Jan 3, 2014, at 12:43 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
They will -- the government realizes that its plan is undermined and is
reassessing
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 3, 2014, at 12:08 PM
federal law.
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.comwrote:
And here's a post that (in part) responds to Kevin -- although my
principal point is the *Little Sisters* case is an unimportant sideshow,
and that it won't matter much what the Court does
, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.comwrote:
Sorry, I should have added that if ND prohibited only women, and not men,
from using contraception, that would violate the title IX prohibition on
sex discrimination. But a rule that all students must not indulge in
unmarried sex, or in unmarried
Linked here:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/01/opening-briefs-in-hobby-lobby-and.html
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.comwrote:
Official word from the Court:
All briefs for an amicus curiae must be filed on or before Tuesday,
January 28, 2014
Just a quick point to quibble with the factual premises of the
selectivity argument. Plans offered by small business *do *have to
include the relevant preventive services, including -- but hardly limited
to -- contraception services. (The services also include cholesterol
screening; colorectal
objections.)
Nathan
On Jan 11, 2014, at 7:54 AM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote:
Just a quick point to quibble with the factual premises of the selectivity
argument. Plans offered by small business do have to include the relevant
preventive services, including -- but hardly
, but
the rule.
On Jan 11, 2014, at 10:03 AM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
Businesses with fewer than 50 fulltime employees are subject to all of the
same federal laws as larger employers -- and all the same incentives to
offer employee plans -- with one principal exception
I don't read it to say anything of the sort: Footnote 2 is about what can
happen if an employer *that* *sponsors a plan* fails to include required
coverage.
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Douglas Laycock dlayc...@virginia.eduwrote:
Footnote 2 of the government’s brief appears to disclaim,
or risk
payment of the tax. *Liberty Univ.*, 733 F.3d at 98; cf. *National Fed’n of
Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius*, 132 S. Ct. 2566, 2596-2597 (2012).
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Marty Lederman
lederman.ma...@gmail.comwrote:
I don't read it to say anything of the sort: Footnote 2 is about what can
Nathan: I agree that the government has other ways to achieve its
compelling interest -- paying for the coverage itself -- if by coverage
you mean health insurance coverage. And thus, for unemployed persons,
and employees who do not have access to employer-offered insurance, that's
exactly what
valuable employment package. To force it only
on those with such objections still leaves them burdened.
Grace and peace to you,
Derek
*From: *Marty Lederman
*Sent: *Saturday, January 11, 2014 12:20 PM
*To: *Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Reply To: *Marty Lederman
*Subject: *Re
Thanks for all the helpful responses on this. I've published a post on the
underinclusiveness question here:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/01/hobby-lobby-part-iv-myth-of.html
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.comwrote:
Just a quick point to quibble
It seems, then, that the Court has given the Little Sisters substantial
relief by not requiring them to sign the government form.
No it hasn't. The government concedes that it lacks the legal authority to
require the third-party administrator of a church plan -- here, Christian
Bros. Services --
Kevin's account *might *be relevant in case like Notre Dame's, where the
insurer and third-party administrator are in fact providing the coverage
after ND opted out. But that account is of no moment in a case such as
Little Sisters, where the women would not receive coverage from Christian
Bros.
It is an implied message of support *for what*? What rational human
being would construe: We have a religious objection to providing
contraceptive coverage to mean we support coverage of contraceptive
coverage? Seriously, we are so far down the rabbit hole here . . .
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at
of the regs that the Little Sisters
would be directing Christian Bros. to comply with?
Mark
Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent
in the robbery.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Marty Lederman
lederman.ma...@gmail.comwrote:
It is an implied message of support *for what*? What rational human
being would construe: We have a religious objection to providing
contraceptive coverage to mean we support coverage
While you're all waiting with bated breath to read all the amicus briefs
(more the 54 so far), here's yet another post, this one on the question of
religious exercise by for-profit corporations and their
owners/employees/directors:
Hobby Lobby brief:
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/13-354-bs-1-copy.pdf
Government brief in Conestoga Wood:
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/13-356bsUnitedStates-copy.pdf
I have a question for the members of the listserv:
The main point of the
*To:* Marty Lederman
*Cc:* conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu
*Subject:* Re: Posner on oral advocacy in religion caseesri
I don't want to put too fine a point on this, but this entire line of
reasoning by ND is utter insanity. The good news is that the religious
groups have gotten too clever
Who's talking about a deprivation of liberty, and why should that matter?
If you didn't receive social security benefits because your employer had a
religious reason for refusing to pay into the system, would you not be
injured, since social security is now something to which *everyone *is
...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:02 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood briefs -- and an historical
question
On a quick read, it appears that neither
-8546
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Sunday, February 16, 2014 3:15 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood briefs -- and an historical
question
I may have more to say on this point later, but for now this'll have to
suffice:
First, Doug may be correct that there is no doubt about what the Church's
teaching is about the morality of *contraception use. *But there sure is
plenty of doubt, as Eduardo noted, about whether the Church, or
...@lists.ucla.edureligionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
*On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Sunday, February 16, 2014 3:52 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood briefs -- and an historical
question
For what it's worth, I have never endorsed
I appreciate Marci's support on my other point, but I'm afraid I don't
agree that the views of American Catholics writ large is especially
relevant. It's no secret that most Catholics, including ND students and
faculty, disagree with ND's view, and with the Church's, on the morality of
IMHO, the emphasis in the CTA10 opinion, and in the amicus briefs, on
whether corporations can exercise religion or have beliefs, is beside the
point. (I try to explain why here:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/01/hobby-lobby-part-v-whose-religious.html)
If it were me, I'd assign excerpts from
I have some further posts up on Balkinization. More importantly, both Chip
Lupu/Bob Tuttle and Doug Laycock have excellent posts up as part of the
SCOTUSblog symposium, which I commend to all of you:
Chip/Bob:
:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:33 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* recommended Hobby Lobby posts
I have some further posts up on Balkinization. More
...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:33 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* recommended Hobby Lobby posts
I have some further posts up on Balkinization. More importantly
fifty employees.
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Marty Lederman
lederman.ma...@gmail.comwrote:
Quick responses to these two points:
1. When I referred to differences between RLPA and RFRA, I was alluding
to the amendment to RLPA at that time providing that This Act should be
construed
of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:33 PM
*To:* Law Religion
Alan: I'll let Chip speak for himself, but I don't think the relevant
distinction is so much between employment cases and all others as it is
between cases *in the commercial sector *(especially claims brought by
for-profit enterprises) and all others. In *Piggie Park*, for example, the
harm was
Derek writes: The briefs convincingly demonstrates that this doesn't
qualify as a compelling government interest because the regulatory regime
established by the government already allows for large numbers of women not
to get free abortifacients /contraceptives from their employers.
Convincing
:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Friday, February 21, 2014 5:26 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: RLPA history for RLUIPA
Which tax? Hobby Lobby, like any employer, can choose not to offer an
employee health care plan
at 2:46 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.comwrote:
Not so fast, Chip!
The Kansas House passed it, but it appears that the Senate will not do so
. . . despite a 32-8 Republican majority!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-rt-usa-gaymarriagekansas-20140212,0,4249694,full.story
Even
to advancing its
desired health policy objectives while also being respectful of the
substantial number of its citizens who it knew would have religious
objections.
Grace and peace to you,
Derek
*From: *Marty Lederman
*Sent: *Friday, February 21, 2014 6:22 PM
*To: *Law Religion issues for Law
Apologies in advance if someone has already made this connection:
If I'm understanding it correctly, the effect of the Arizona bill would be
to establish or confirm that the Arizona RFRA *does exactly what Hobby
Lobby and its amici are arguing the federal RFRA already does* -- namely,
extend
One quibble: In the memo Kagan does not accept the complicity argument
full-blown--that is, . . . the idea that a religious landlord might
legitimately claim to be morally responsible for the sexual behavior of her
tenants and that RFRA is available for such a claim. She doesn't address
that
Obviously, I'm not nearly as sanguine as Doug about the possible effects of
Hobby Lobby on all these other cases in the commercial sector. For one
thing, the Court's rationale if it rules for Hobby Lobby, on both
substantial burden and compelling interest, will not in any way, shape or
form
To be fair to Doug and others of us who fought for RFRA and RLPA and RLUIPA
way back when, we thought they were worth fighting for because of all
manner of cases that *did not involve the commercial sector* -- including,
for example, Doug's prisoner case that the Court just granted. Doug is
right
PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
To be fair to Doug and others of us who fought for RFRA and RLPA and
RLUIPA way back when, we thought they were worth fighting for because of
all manner of cases that *did not involve the commercial sector* --
including, for example
My take on this question is here, Sandy:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-ii-whats-it-all-about.html
In short:
Some religious persons believe that a drug or device that prevents
implantation of the embryo in the uterine wall is the taking of a life,
whether it's called an
Except that the employer is not involved in determining the range of benefits
any more than it determines the minimum wage-- the preventive services are
required by law to be in all plans.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 11, 2014, at 9:26 PM, Brad Pardee bp51...@windstream.net wrote:
Because the
The employer does not earmark any benefits as being for contraception.
(Indeed, not even the plan does so.) Nor does the employer purchase
contraception.
An employer that does not offer a health care plan will pay its employees
more in wages. (It's all a form of compensation for labor.) Those
Thanks very much, Tom and Jim, for teeing up these issues. A few points
about the abortion angle, most of which I discussed in further detail back
in December (
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-ii-whats-it-all-about.html
:
1. Preventing implantation is not considered an
approaches
-- which is the case when anti-discrimination laws are at issue.
Alan
--
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Marty Lederman [
lederman.ma...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 25, 2014 1:19 PM
Well, the opinion is a complete mess, and might not best be read as a
constitutional decision at all. It does, however, suggest a lurking
interesting question about religious accommodations and vaccinations,
albeit one not raised by this case.
This is an unemployment compensation case involving
I actually think the can corporations exercise religion? question is a
red herring. As is the shareholder right-to-sue question. The gist of
the claims in these cases are that the individual plaintiffs, the Hanhs and
the Greens, have had their religious exercise burdened in *their capacities
as
/internal_revenue_service/index.html?inline=nyt-org,
blocks any wholesale move by employers to dump employees into the exchanges.
Am I missing something?
Art Spitzer
*Warning*
*: this message is subject to monitoring by the NSA.*
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote
, and pay a fine, there is a strong argument that the law
still creates a substantial burden. I think we've discussed that issue at
length.
Mark
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 10, 2014, at 10:09 AM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
missing something?
Art Spitzer
*Warning*
*: this message is subject to monitoring by the NSA. *
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
I agree with Mark's correction that the complaint of the Greens is not
that their employees' use
I'm teaching the law of religion this fall, after several years away from
the survey course. Has anyone here had a great deal of success with any
particular casebook? (I usually assign full opinions, but am open to using
a casebook if there's a superlative one out there.) And do any of you have
slightly – at least corporate law
does not become a part of First Amendment law. But it is still quite
implausible that the Congress meant to nationalize a traditionally state
law area without explicit consideration of the implications.
From: Marty Lederman [mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com]
Sent
is the rights of the corporation, not its directors or
shareholders or beneficiaries of a trust holding shares. The human beings
have too attenuated a claim on the corporation’s assets for their rights to
be at issue when it spends, or is compelled to spend, money.
*From:* Marty Lederman
I'm under no illusion that such things could possibly have any influence on
the Court at this late date (majority opinions having been in circulation
for at least two weeks now), but thought it might be worth posting two
further entries on Hobby Lobby, in anticipation of the decision:
business
decision, and exercise religion.
Alan Brownstein
--
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Marty Lederman [
lederman.ma...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Sunday, June 15, 2014 2:04 PM
*To:* Law Religion
Scalia and Thomas dissenting:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/061614zor_2b8e.pdf
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
is writing the lead opinion. (And no, I don't have any inside info
on that, either!)
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm under no illusion that such things could possibly have any influence
on the Court at this late date (majority opinions having
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/06/hobby-lobby-part-xvi-half-dozen.html
* Hobby Lobby Part XVI -- A half-dozen possibilities that shouldn't
surprise you in today's decision *
Marty Lederman
The Supreme Court will almost certainly issue its decision in *Burwell v.
Hobby Lobby* this morning
As have I:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/06/hobby-lobby-part-xvii-upshot-of.html
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Friedman, Howard M.
howard.fried...@utoledo.edu wrote:
I have just posted some (probably controversial) preliminary thoughts on
Hobby Lobby on Religion Clause--
Perry: I think this is a very important, and contestable, assumption:
Hobby Lobby is using religious reasoning, not secular reasoning [in
determining what sort of connection constitutes prohibited complicity].
What is the basis for that assumption? In fact, virtually all theological
analysis
301 - 400 of 652 matches
Mail list logo
