Ireland

Ireland!, of all places. 62 percent to 38, and in 42 of 43 districts. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/world/europe/ireland-gay-marriage-referendum.html ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options,

Re: Developments in contraceptive coverage

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/07/update-on-contraception-coverage.html. On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote: The Second Circuit rules in accord with the others; four more cases outstanding (in the 6th, 7th, 8th and 11th Circuits). [UPDATE: h

Re: Substantial burden and requirements imposed on people who choose to go into certain businesses

...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman *Sent:* Sunday, August 16, 2015 3:09 PM *To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics *Subject:* Re: Substantial burden and requirements imposed on people who choose to go into certain businesses I think that requirements that keep new entrants of certain

Re: Developments in contraceptive coverage

, squarely address On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote: First USG Brief in Opp. filed: On Wednesday, the Solicitor General filed this brief https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/priests.archdiocese.bio_.pdf in opposition

Re: Developments in contraceptive coverage

, and two types of IUDs. On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote: A fifth petition filed, this one in *Little Sisters*: [UPDATE: e. On July 23, 2015, the parties in one of the consolidated cases in the Tenth Circuit--Little Sisters, et al.--filed petition

Re: Developments in contraceptive coverage

, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote: and a sixth petition, also from the Tenth Circuit decision: f. On July 24, 2015, four university plaintiffs in the Tenth Circuit case filed another petition, No. 15-119 https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08

Re: Developments in contraceptive coverage

these entities’ independent interactions with the government, even if Plaintiffs find these actions objectionable. On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote: Also, the Seventh Circuit today denied Notre Dame's petition for rehearing en banc; no judge requested a vote

Re: Colorado Cakeshop decision

.) Eugene Marty Lederman writes: Or to put Paul's point in a slightly different, more doctrinal light -- and one that harkens back to our landlord discussions circa 1998 [you can look it up!] -- if we're in a RFRA jurisdiction, there is far less of a substantial burden on one's

Re: Colorado Cakeshop decision

Or to put Paul's point in a slightly different, more doctrinal light -- and one that harkens back to our landlord discussions circa 1998 [you can look it up!] -- if we're in a RFRA jurisdiction, there is far less of a substantial burden on one's religious exercise if the government sanction is

Colorado Cakeshop decision

https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2015/14CA1351-PD.pdf Fairly straightforward. Rejects free speech and free exercise claims. (The case does not involve a refusal to bake a cake displaying any particular content -- the bakery refused to bake *any* cake for a same-sex

Re: Developments in contraceptive coverage

-- *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [ religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Marty Lederman [ lederman.ma...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, July 20, 2015 12:23 PM *To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics *Subject:* Developments in contraceptive coverage FYI, a post

Re: Developments in contraceptive coverage

Also, the Seventh Circuit today denied Notre Dame's petition for rehearing en banc; no judge requested a vote on the petition. On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote: A fifth petition filed, this one in *Little Sisters*: [UPDATE: e. On July 23, 2015

Developments in contraceptive coverage

FYI, a post on developments of the past few months, in three parts: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/07/update-on-contraception-coverage.html *First*, a quick note on the government's new final rules regarding the religious accommodation (including its extension to some for-profit employers such

Re: Unpacking the Zubik case

petitioners total *(four of which use both employee and student plans) On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > FYI -- I hope some of you might find this helpful: > > > http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/11/who-is-zubik-in-zubik-v-bu

Unpacking the Zubik case

FYI -- I hope some of you might find this helpful: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/11/who-is-zubik-in-zubik-v-burwell-and-why.html ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see

Re: Unpacking the Zubik case

ial) > 202-347-3622 (Fax) > gbay...@adflegal.org > ADFlegal.org > Not Licensed in DC > Practice Limited to Federal Court > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman > *Sent:* Monday, November 0

Re: Cert Granted in Non-Profit Contraceptive Mandate Cases

bik v. Burwell"* Marty Lederman Today the Court decided not to decide <http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110615zr_j4ek.pdf> among the seven petitions in the contraceptive cases--it granted (and consolidated) them all on the RFRA question. The Court did *not *grant on the two qu

Re: Nonprofit challenges to the contraceptive coverage accommodation: On to the Supeme Court

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/10/supreme-court-sets-date-for.html *Supreme Court sets date for consideration of nonprofit RFRA challenges to contraception coverage accommodation* Marty Lederman As expected, the petitioners in Nos. 15-105, *Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell, *and 15-119

"Call for Constitutional Resistance"

FYI: https://americanprinciplesproject.org/founding-principles/statement-calling-for-constitutional-resistance-to-obergefell-v-hodges%E2%80%AF/ We call on all federal and state officeholders: *To refuse to accept Obergefell as binding precedent for all but the specific plaintiffs in that case.*

Re: Final Regs on matters including Contraceptive (or per some claimants abortifacient) Mandate

the applicant the challenged provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and related regulations pending final disposition of appellate review. ... Mark Sent from my iPad On Jul 10, 2015, at 2:39 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote: The notice requires

Re: Final Regs on matters including Contraceptive (or per some claimants abortifacient) Mandate

I have great admiration for the Becket Fund and its attorneys, notwithstanding our substantive differences. But the Fund is not doing itself any favors by promulgating absurd statements such as: “Just last week the Supreme Court ordered HHS not to enforce the exact rules they finalized today.

Re: Final Regs on matters including Contraceptive (or per some claimants abortifacient) Mandate

fair, as it is my understanding that the form is essential for providing contraception. On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote: It's probably not wise even to engage with Michael Worley on this, in light of how patently inappropriate and misleading

Re: Final Regs on matters including Contraceptive (or per some claimants abortifacient) Mandate

. On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote: I have great admiration for the Becket Fund and its attorneys, notwithstanding our substantive differences. But the Fund is not doing itself any favors by promulgating absurd statements such as: “Just last week

Re: High school athlete disqualified under uniform code for wearing headband with religious writing on it

Invoke the avoidance canon! There's no religious freedom issue here; but still, I wondered, for Free Speech purposes, what the state association's reason might be for decreeing that no writing could appear on headbands. I assumed there would be a general "no writing on uniforms" rule, for

Re: Developments in contraceptive coverage

in support of the petitions in the Fifth and Tenth Circuit cases but, curiously, none in the *D.C. Archbishiop *case, which is the one the Court is most likely to hear if it grants any petition. On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote: One more court of appeals

Re: Question about the Kentucky County Clerk controversy

ts.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman > *Sent:* Thursday, September 03, 2015 9:50 AM > > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Subject:* Re: Question about the Kentucky County Clerk controversy > > > &g

Re: Question about the Kentucky County Clerk controversy

ottesville, VA 22903 > > 434-243-8546 > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman > *Sent:* Thursday, September 03, 2015 10:41 AM > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics >

Re: Question about the Kentucky County Clerk controversy

ana University Maurer School of Law > Bloomington, Indiana 47405 > (812) 855-4331 > fax (812) 855-0555 > e-mail con...@indiana.edu > > > > > > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > relig

What's happening in KY?

The reports I've seen (e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html) do not make clear exactly what's happening, other than that Davis is incarcerated. 1. Is the County Executive Judge now issuing certificates and licenses (which might ironically eliminate the

Re: The clerk of court / death warrant hypothetical

Assuming Jane Smith would otherwise lose a job of longstanding here, I think we agree on this one, Eugene! Not because Jane thinks the presence of her name makes her "complicit" in the sense of responsible for the execution (it doesn't), but because, on your hypo, her (very idiosyncratic)

Re: What's happening in KY? -- my differences with Eugene

> 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:* Saturday, September 05, 2015 12:55 PM > > *To:* La

Re: What's happening in KY?

, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > The reports I've seen (e.g., > http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html) do > not make clear exactly what's happening, other than that Davis is > incarcerated. > > 1. Is the Co

Re: What's happening in KY? -- my differences with Eugene

dation --- something he has in fact >> just given her!" >> >> Perhaps I missed this detail in one of your earlier posts, Marty. Can >> you fill me in on just how the court has already provided this relief? I >> thought the forms were pre-printed with her name

Re: More Davis strangeness

>>> >>> Howard M. Wasserman >>> Professor of Law >>> FIU College of Law >>> University Park, RDB 2065 >>> Miami, Florida 33199 >>> (305) 348-7482 >>> (786) 417-2433 >>> howard.wasser...@fiu.edu >>> Faculty Pag

More Davis strangeness

I'm pressed for time, so this is only a preliminary take, but thought it'd be worth throwing it out there for reactions: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/09/further-strangeness-in-kim-davis-case.html ___ To post, send message to

Re: Kim Davis released, given that her Deputies are issuing licenses

the deputies to report on compliance every two weeks. > > > > > > > > Douglas Laycock > > Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law > > University of Virginia Law School > > 580 Massie Road > > Charlottesville, VA 22903 > > 434-24

Re: Kim Davis released, given that her Deputies are issuing licenses

t; > Douglas Laycock > > Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law > > University of Virginia Law School > > 580 Massie Road > > Charlottesville, VA 22903 > > 434-243-8546 > > > > *From:* Howard Wasserman [mailto:wasse...@fiu.edu] > *Sent:* Tues

Davis doubles down

the sincerity of the ever-evolving theories of complicity. On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm pressed for time, so this is only a preliminary take, but thought it'd > be worth throwing it out there for reactions: > > > http:

Re: What's happening in KY? -- my differences with Eugene

that the Clerk's name can be omitted, i.e., because a lesser restrictive alternative law is in some sense available to the Commonwealth -- albeit one it has not yet enacted. On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > FWIW, my effort to make sense (?) of the mes

Re: Equal Protection violation for not extending contraception coverage exemption to secular anti-abortion group?

> by paying taxes. > > Sandy > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 1, 2015, at 7:42 AM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > So rules Judge Richard Leon: > > https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2014cv1149-30 >

Kim Davis released, given that her Deputies are issuing licenses

Contempt order lifted. Because the deputies are issuing licenses -- which the judge assumes are valid without Davis's name, since plaintiffs have not suggested otherwise -- he lets Davis out of jail and orders that she "shall not interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of

Re: Davis doubles down

the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts opposed the death > penalty on religious grounds, and was allowed to take his name off of all > filings in capital cases, would we really entertain a claim that it would > not be terribly burdensome to require the government to take the off

Notre Dame diversion

’s questions that nothing short of a complete >> government abdication of providing contraception to Notre Dame’s employees >> would satisfy Notre Dame. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Eric >> >> >> >> *From:* c

Re: Notre Dame diversion

racter and mission. > > As you note, it does seem that the University's current position is not > the same as Davis's, and for the reason you cite: The insurer and/or TPA > are *Notre Dame's* insurer and/or TPA, and so Notre Dame is not > "noninvolve[d]." > > R

Re: What's happening in the Kim Davis case

___ > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [ > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Marty Lederman [ > lederman.ma...@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 4:34 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Cc: Michael

Re: What's happening in the Kim Davis case

ar proposal I've put on the table for how things could work in > Kentucky, at least until a more systemic fix can be adopted, I'm > unpersuaded that there are unacceptable harms to the interests of > plaintiffs and others similarly situated. > > ____

Re: What's happening in the Kim Davis case

...@lists.ucla.edu [ > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Marty Lederman [ > lederman.ma...@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 6:23 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: What's happening in the Kim Davis case > > Th

Re: What's happening in the Kim Davis case

Yes, but that same statute also says that the *Deputy Clerk* can issue the license, in addition to the Clerk. Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.100(1)(c). In such cases, obviously, the "authorization statement" in question becomes that of the Deputy Clerk -- *which the State's official form acknowledges when

Kim Davis announcement about what she'll do at work today

ued pursuant to a federal court order." http://wishtv.com/2015/09/14/kentucky-clerk-jailed-over-gay-marriage-to-return-to-work-today/ On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 5:56 AM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > Davis has now filed a couple of briefs in the Sixth Circuit, and at

Re: Assessing a Proposed Solution to the KY Case

; (which calls for information about prior marriages). That is not the kind > of office I would want to run. (It is also not the nature of Davis's > objection.) > > Finally, Jim asks: "Can the use or nonuse of county authority really be > determined by the religious beliefs of county of

Re: Assessing a Proposed Solution to the KY Case

Fortunately, there is an accommodation available here that both allows couples to marry in Rowan County and that avoids Davis having to approve or authorize such marriages (even only in her official capacity) -- and, conveniently, that accommodation is the very solution currently in play, namely,

Re: Kim Davis announcement about what she'll do at work today

summarizing: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/09/kim-davis-developments.html On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > She stated that she has ordered that the licenses issued by the Deputies > will not include her name *or title o

Re: Kim Davis announcement about what she'll do at work today

the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license." If "Morehead" suffices for "place," then these requirement are literally satisfied, although nothing on the face of the license indicates that it was issued by a Clerk or Deputy Clerk. On Mon, Sep

CTA6 rejects Davis's KY RFRA claim on sovereign immunity grounds

In an order today the Sixth Circuit rejected Kim Davis's state RFRA claim which, realistically, was the only one in play. "We need not address the merits of her claims under Kentucky law because the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution precludes the federal courts from compelling state

Re: Judge Bunning's Injunctions

This is extremely helpful, thanks, Doug. A couple of reactions: 1. First, Davis clearly is in flat violation of the judge's order of 9/11, which stated that "Defendant Davis *shall not interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses

Re: Assessing a Proposed Solution to the KY Case

ichmond.edu>> > >Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 11:56 AM > >To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > >Subject: Re: Assessing a Proposed Solution to the KY Case > > > > > >Chip et al. — Perhaps events on the ground have overtaken all of this. > Stil

What's happening in the Kim Davis case

, the Kentucky RFRA creates a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and thus a violation of it constitutes an unconstitutional denial of liberty without due process. I'll let that argument speak for itself. On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Marty Lederman

Contraceptive care regulation -- we have a circuit split!

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/15/09/141507P.pdf I haven't yet read it, but I think this makes it *very *likely the Court will grant the petition in *Roman Catholic Archbishop of DC*, which will be considered at the "long" conference on Sept. 28. It's even possible, I suppose, that the

Re: What's happening in the Kim Davis case

could simply obtain another > county clerk's authorization and note that on the form. Without any changes > to the form, the deputy clerk could then simply add in "by the clerk of > County" and otherwise fill out the rest of the form without mentioning > Rowan County other

Nonprofit challenges to the contraceptive coverage accommodation: On to the Supeme Court

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/09/on-to-supreme-court-status-update-on.html *On to the Supreme Court: Status update on Roman Catholic Archbishop, Little Sisters, and the other nonprofit contraception accommodation cases* Marty Lederman Since I last wrote <http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015

Re: Davis doubles down

Larry Wallace famously recused from filing the SG's Bob Jones brief even though he was Acting SG for the case. On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Brian Landsberg wrote: > Yes, the policy, though unstated, dates back at least to the early > 1970’s. I was excused from

Plaintiffs in Kim Davis case allege that adulterated licenses violate their constitutional rights

Davis ask court to order Deputy Clerks to issue unadulterated marriage licenses* Marty Lederman The plaintiffs in the Kim Davis case have now made a motion <http://the%20form%20of%20the/> to Judge Bunning to require the Deputy Clerks in Rowan County to go back to issuing marriage lice

Is Kim Davis complying with the injunction?

One week ago, on Sept. 11, Judge Bunning issued the following order when he released Kim Davis from federal custody: "Defendant Davis shall not *interfere* *in any way, directly or indirectly*, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples. If

Re: Is Kim Davis complying with the injunction?

han a > Senator. > >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:55 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> One week ago, on Sept. 11, Judge Bunning issued the following order when he >> released Kim Davis from federal custody: >> >> "Def

Civil determination of a religious question in Rowan County?

A report to the court of another of the Rowan County Deputy Clerks today includes the following: "Mrs. Plank reports that, to the best of her knowledge, all requests for marriage licenses requested by legally qualified couples have been issued. The only denial of a marriage license application

State RFRAs and their equivalents

Is there a reliable, up-to-date list of state RFRAs and state constitutional provisions that have, more or less, been construed to incorporate Sherbert/Yoder? I know that many are compiled in Chris's 2010 article. Anything more recent? Thanks in advance.

Re: North Carolina Magistrate Law

Just curious: Does anyone think there's any merit to the EC, EPC and/or DPC claims? On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Anthony Michael Kreis wrote: > FYI: Same-sex couples backed by local LGBT rights organizations filed a > complaint this morning in federal court challenging the

Re: North Carolina Magistrate Law

Is it safe for me to assume that the utter silence here means that virtually no one thinks there's merit to the case? I'm genuinely curious to hear from anyone who thinks there's more to it than first appears. On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com>

Re: the unconstitutionality of barring Muslims from entering the U.S.

This post by Steve Vladeck strikes me as just right: https://www.justsecurity.org/28221/missing-constitutional-analyses-donald-trumps-muslim-immigration-ban/ Three relatively minor additional points: 1. I don't believe there have ever been any Supreme Court cases in which the "plenary power"

The State of Religious Freedom in America

In a word, tenuous . Or, as the President said

thoughts on constitutionality of single-sex hours for public pool?

permissible accommodation? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/opinion/everybody-into-the-pool.html ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see

Muhammad Ali, conscientious objection, and the Supreme Court’s struggle to understand “jihad” and “holy war”: The story of Cassius Clay v. United States

Thought this might be of interest to some on the List; among other things, it raises an interesting question about the substance of the statutory requirement, discussed in *Gillette*, that a C.O. had to be opposed to participation in war "in any form"--namely, whether it encompasses someone (Ali)

The Bedford pool exemption--a collection of reactions

Well, I'm sure glad I asked about this case -- this has been a wonderfully provocative and informative thread, thanks! A few reactions and further questions: 1. I'll start with the Establishment Clause. First, let's assume for the sake of argument (and to clarify our analysis) a

Re: Cert Granted in Blaine Amendment case

On first glance, this has the potential to be a huge case. Not only will it almost certainly test the limits of *Locke v. Davey* (and, perhaps, whether *Locke* even survives the departure of Rehnquist and O'Connor) on the Free Exercise side, but it also is the first SCOTUS case in 16 years --

Re: Excluding religious institutions from public safety benefits

ation in Trinity > Lutheran and for church-autonomy in, say, Hosanna-Tabor. > > Best wishes, > > Rick > > > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Mark, this is certainly true, and important: >> >

Re: Excluding religious institutions from public safety benefits

Mark, this is certainly true, and important: "The Remonstrance was written at a time when states did not provide extensive benefits to most people or at least was not omnipresence in all aspects of their lives. Not a penny shall go to a church is a lot harder to figure out when lots of

Re: Cert Granted in Blaine Amendment case

ough, as with Trump, I’m confident that a lot of Evangelical > Christians who will not be happy with an argument that their tax dollars > have to go to fund Islamic schools. > > > > sandy > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-bou

Re: Cert Granted in Blaine Amendment case

er the state may have (as in > Locke) a broader funding restriction than the 1st A requires. > An important case, but one that could be decided quite narrowly > (distinguishing Locke as being about a precisely focused state interest in > not subsidizing training for ministry). > > On Fri,

Re: Cert Granted in Blaine Amendment case

favor of the state having discretion to refuse to fund a scholarship > for preparation in ministry, even if the Establishment Clause allowed it. > Scalia and Thomas would need three additional votes to narrow that > discretion, to squeeze it back to what the Establishment Clause forbids, >

Re: The funding criteria in Trinity Lutheran

gt; *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman > *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 2:15 PM > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > *Subject:* Re: Cert Granted in Bl

The Establishment Clause question in the Trinity Lutheran case

ding here would violate the EC. Still, it would be rather remarkable if the Court were to hold, for the first time in history(?), that the state can make direct grants to churches, in a case where no party has even argued to the contrary. On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Marty Lederman <lede

Suit challenging failure of USCCB to comply with legal requirements of funding programs

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/25/us/suit-challenges-us-over-abortions-and-birth-control-for-immigrant-minors.html Here's the complaint: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/06.24.16_doc._1_complaint.pdf I'm a bit confused by all of this, at least at first glance. According

Re: landlord/tenant law and RFRA

Roberta: This would almost certainly be exclusively a question of state law, wherever it arises (if it ever does). There first would have to be a state or local ordinance prohibiting such discrimination; and then also a state RFRA, or a state constitutional free exercise provision that has been

Re: landlord/tenant law and RFRA

ties have not > won exemptions from discrimination laws under the RFRA standard. Most of > them should not win; for the few situations in which they should, specific > exemptions are needed to provide any protection that is at all likely to > work. > -- >

Re: Texas Cheerleaders display Bible Verses on banners

Here's what's happened in this very confusing case. Warning: It's not very comprehensible. But what is clear is that no court has (thus far) actually adjudicated any *substantive *dispute, on the merits, about any state or federal constitutional question: 1. The cheerleaders of the Kountze

Re: Texas Cheerleaders display Bible Verses on banners

.aspx?MediaVersionID=c31bbddb-6a69-490b-b73e-8032cbf8f6a0=cossup=BRIEFS=e6ba8867-e8f9-479c-be22-8766c71d1d66> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here's what's happened in this very confusing case. Warning: It's not > very comprehensi

Alito dissent from denial in (what should have been) a prison Lukumi case

see pp. 39f. of the pdf: http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022916zor_7lho.pdf The Court undoubtedly denied *cert.* because the pro se filing was very weak, verging on unintelligibility: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Petitioners-Brief.pdf Alito appears to be

Re: Alito dissent from denial in (what should have been) a prison Lukumi case

. Justice Alito was alone in thinking that the Court should reach out to engage in error correction. On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > see pp. 39f. of the pdf: > > http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022916zor_7lho.pd

Zubik (RFRA contraception cases) update

I don't recall whether I've already posted any of the briefs to the listserv, but now they've all been filed except for the petitioners' two reply briefs, which will be filed March 11. Argument will be 90 minutes (45 for the two petitioners' counsel; 45 for the government) on Wednesday, March 23.

Arizona, Indiana . . . and now Georgia

https://gov.georgia.gov/press-releases/2016-03-28/transcript-deal-hb-757-remarks-0 The bill: http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20152016/161054.pdf ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or

Re: Arizona, Indiana . . . and now Georgia

AG Cooper will not defend--he'll argue that it's unconstitutional: http://www.wral.com/ag-cooper-hb2-a-national-embarassment-/15606882/ He says that the governor, legislature, etc., can hire outside counsel to defend. On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c) <

Re: Arizona, Indiana . . . and now Georgia

As reflected in my recent article and (with Gordon/Greenawalt/Lupu/Tuttle) amicus brief, I have become convinced that where RFRA(s) went "wrong" is when advocates and judges started insisting--mistakenly, in the case of federal RFRA--that it is more demanding than the pre-*Smith* Free Exercise

Re: Arizona, Indiana . . . and now Georgia

n Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:02 PM, Michael Worley <mwor...@byulaw.net> wrote: > Marty makes a fair point. But under pre-Smith jurisprudence, a federal > mandate on the topic of contraception would not have been dreamed of > either. > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Marty

Re: Arizona, Indiana . . . and now Georgia

580 Massie Road > Charlottesville, VA 22903 > 434-243-8546 > -- > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [ > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Marty Lederman [ > lederman.ma...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, March 28, 2016 9:10 PM > > *To:* Law &

Re: questions re zubik oral argument

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

CTA10 kicks "Sister Wives" challenge to Utah bigamy law on mootness grounds

after the Utah County Attorney’s Office adopted a policy under which the Utah County Attorney will bring bigamy prosecutions only against those who (1) induce a partner to marry through misrepresentation or (2) are suspected of committing a collateral crime such as fraud or abuse.

Re: Zubik - a different hypo, closer to the case itself

Let me try out another hypo, closer to the facts of Zubik, to see what people's reactions are. As I understand it, what the government and Doug are proposing is that the Court establish another bright-line rule, akin to the one the Court developed in *Bowen *and *Lyng*, excluding a certain

Re: Zubik / Little Sisters - testing the scope via a hypothetical

This is getting a bit removed from the main discussion, but just a couple of points in response to Brad Jacob's post: 1. The federal government, of course, has not required anyone to "provide abortifacients to their employees." That's simply a tendentious way of characterizing the regulation.

Re: Zubik / Little Sisters - testing the scope via a hypothetical

Doug is right, and this is a tempest in a teapot, far removed from the question that was (not surprisingly) at the heart of today's argument (namely, whether the theoretical prospect of legislation that would permit women to purchase a contraception-only plan on an exchange, and that would fully

Re: Zubik / Little Sisters - testing the scope via a hypothetical

n independent legal obligation to provide the coverage and, moreover, will have to do so through a separate plan if an employer objects. On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > Doug is right, and this is a tempest in a teapot, far removed from th

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >