Zubik oral argument

I've published a couple of posts on the argument. The first explains why the case (not surprisingly) is likely to turn on the "least restrictive means" inquiry, and on why the "hijacking the plan" metaphor is inapt. The

State law question raised by Trinity Lutheran Church

Does anyone know of a good, authoritative source for a listing of all states that have a constitutional provision (or a statute) like those in Missouri that categorically forbid the payment of public funds, or appropriations, to churches, as such, to "religious institutions," or something similar?

Re: State law question raised by Trinity Lutheran Church

*Sent:* Saturday, April 30, 2016 8:52 AM > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Subject:* Re: State law question raised by Trinity Lutheran Church > > Oklahoma State Constitution, Article II Section 5. > On Apr 30, 2016 7:32 AM, "Marty Lederma

Re: Trinity Lutheran Church - will churches have to extend "equal protection" to all when it comes to use?

government have to exclude > churches? Chip’s theory suggests that indeed the government has to leave > the people who visit churches unprotected, even as it’s protecting everyone > else. That doesn’t seem right to me. > > > > Eugene > > > > > > Marty Lederman

Re: Trinity Lutheran Church - will churches have to extend "equal protection" to all when it comes to use?

As I understood Michael's observation, it was that the topside briefs in *Trinity Lutheran* argue at great length that churches, as such, can virtually never be disfavored vis-a-vis similarly situated secular institutions, under both the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses -- whereas the

Re: Trinity Lutheran Church - will churches have to extend "equal protection" to all when it comes to use?

y recently (and perhaps it still is, at least as a matter of precedent) -- is now unconstitutional. On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think I understand Mark's questions about weddings and generally > applicable conditions on tax b

Re: State law question raised by Trinity Lutheran Church

sts/wisconsin/> > Iowa <http://www.becketfund.org/blaine_posts/iowa/> > New York <http://www.becketfund.org/blaine_posts/new-york/> > Wyoming <http://www.becketfund.org/blaine_posts/wyoming/> > Kansas <http://www.becketfund.org/blaine_posts/kansas/> > > > >

Understanding the Zubik supplemental briefs

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/02/compendium-of-posts-on-hobby-lobby-and.html ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see

Re: Understanding the Zubik supplemental briefs

sorry, meant this one: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2016/04/making-sense-of-supplemental-filings-in.html On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/02/compendium-of-posts-on-hobby-lo

Re: questions re zubik oral argument

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

Trinity Lutheran Church's opening brief

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/TrinityLutheranPetitionersBrief.pdf On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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* (

RFRA(s) in the new challenge to federal policy on transgender persons' use of restrooms

See pp 68-71: http://www.adfmedia.org/files/SPPcomplaint.pdf ___ 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

Mississippi AG Hood declines to appeal adverse decision on HB1523

gt; On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> He claims he didn't appeal because "I don’t believe that’s the way to >> carry out Jesus’ primary directives to protect the least among us and to >> love thy neighbor.&q

Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act

He claims he didn't appeal because "I don’t believe that’s the way to carry out Jesus’ primary directives to protect the least among us and to love thy neighbor." Sigh. On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Friedman, Howard M. < howard.fried...@utoledo.edu> wrote: > Issuing a strong statement,

Re: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens

form of the Christian Trinity to have the 'protection of three' and to **serve as a 'mental note.'” *Yet she did not make any claim that posting them was religiously mandated, or that it was a tenet (central or otherwise) of her religion to do so. On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Marty Led

Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens

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

Re: Has anyone compiled the facts re Hobby Lobby type corporate ACA mandate 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

Re: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case

15-page Alito dissent from denial, joined by Roberts and Thomas: http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062816zr_29m1.pdf On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:20 AM, James Oleske wrote: > A quick update on the petition in Stormans. After the petition was > relisted for

Re: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case

ption *due to moral or ethical objections*.” SER 1248 (emphasis added). Religious objections to contraception, in other words, are not "uniquely burdened," even on Alito's view of the case; instead, they are--at *worst*--treated exactly the same as other "moral or ethical objection

Re: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case

e dissent indicates > that three justices believe the answer is "yes" if the religious exemptions > would not undermine the state's interest in the law more than the existing > exemptions. > > > > - Jim > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 7:20 AM,

Re: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case

taught it. Burger wrote Yoder; White wrote Frazee; > but both of them dissented in Welsh. > > This seems a pretty open question to me. > > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman > Sent: Tuesday, June

Re: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case

t not limited to religious reasons and other ethical and moral reasons? I think that is, indeed, an interesting question. But it's probably not one raised by this case--and, in any event, it almost certainly is not cert.-worthy. On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gm

Re: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case

onal requirement that religious > exemptions be made when requested. Section III.B. of the dissent indicates > that three justices believe the answer is "yes" if the religious exemptions > would not undermine the state's interest in the law more than the existing > exemptions. &g

Re: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case

diana 47405 > (812) 855-4331 > fax (812) 855-0555 > e-mail con...@indiana.edu > > > > > > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 28

Re: stocking rule

This is probably not worth the candle any longer, but I'd simply emphasize (i) that the plaintiffs did not challenge the stocking rule; (ii) that the agency has not taken any action against Stormans for failing to stock Plan B and ella (not yet, anyway); (iii) that Stormans is a rather unique case

Re: Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens

centrality inquiry, itself speaks in terms of a > “system of religious belief.” > > https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers2.cfm?abstract_id=2791527 > > > > From: Marty Lederman <martin.leder...@law.georgetown.edu> > Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics < &

Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens

ce." I'm genuinely curious: What do others think of this argument? Does (must?) RFRA truly treat any and all religiously motivated activity the same, regardless of how significant it is to the adherent's beliefs and practices? On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma.

Re: Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens

rt E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law > > University of Virginia Law School > > 580 Massie Road > > Charlottesville, VA 22903 > > 434-243-8546 <(434)%20243-8546> > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-bounces@ > lists.uc

Re: Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens

Road > > Charlottesville, VA 22903 > > 434-243-8546 <(434)%20243-8546> > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-bounces@ > lists.ucla.edu <religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Eric > J Segall > *Sent:* Mo

Re: Arlene's Flowers

No specific discussion of the "least restrictive means" requirement. Did Stutzman make any argument in that regard? On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:08 PM, James Oleske wrote: > One initial observation: While much of the ground in the opinion has > previously been covered by

Re: Successful RFRA defense in EEOC case against funeral home that fired a male-to-female transgender employee for insisting on wearing a skirt suit to work

Exactly, Eugene. The employer already has available to it the "alternative" the judge creatively surmised. The employer himself didn't propose it, no doubt because he would object to Stephens not wearing a tie (not to mention other indicia of the fact that she's a woman, e.g., make-up), and to

Noteworthy, puzzling scholars' brief in Arlene Flowers

Some of you may be familiar with the *Washington v. Arlene's Flowers* case, which will be argued in the Washington Supreme Court next month. Barronelle Stutzman and her husband are the owners of Arlene’s Flowers, Inc., a closely held for-profit corporation. Over the course of nine years, Stutzman

Re: Noteworthy, puzzling scholars' brief in Arlene Flowers

hey were on that issue in Stormans v. > Wiesman (Part III.B. of Justice Alito's dissent from the denial of cert., > joined by the Chief and Justice Thomas). > > Colorado's brief in opposition to Masterpiece's petition is due on > November 29. > > - Jim > > > On Mon, Oct 10,

Re: Religious accommodation schemes and discriminatory practices

Exemption requests? Huh? There's no indication that the employer here had a rule that you must shake the boss's hand, or that the employee sought --let alone was denied -- an exemption from such a (nonexistent) rule. But if an employer were so stupid as to impose such a rule, then yes, I

Re: Noteworthy, puzzling scholars' brief in Arlene Flowers

I assume Doug was referring to Arlene's Flowers' free exercise claim under Art. I, section 11 of the Washington Constitution, which the state court has construed in Sherbert/RFRA-like fashion. Although I don't think the religious exercise claim should prevail in this commercial context, I do

Re: Religious objections to deportation policies

Alan: The first two issues won't (yet) arise because, as far as I know, the law does not require any private persons -- or cities, for that matter -- to assist DHS with its removal proceedings. There are no "obligations to disclose" information about immigration status, in particular. (All that

Bible classes in elementary schools

Any possibility this is constitutional? ___ To post, send message to

Re: Trinity Lutheran and the ERISA cases - Do Churches Want Special Treatment or Not?

Yes, but neither before, nor during, nor after, that 14-year window (1971-1985) did the Court ever suggest that direct money payments to a church would be constitutional under the Establishment Clause -- let alone that a state would be constitutionally *prohibited *from adhering to such a

Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?

Answer: Probably, but it may depend upon some still-uncertain facts: https://balkin.blogspot.com/2017/04/is-trinity-lutheran-church-case-moot.html ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get

Re: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?

t; > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-bounces@ > lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 18, 2017 3:31 PM > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > *Subjec

Re: Trinity Lutheran and the ERISA cases - Do Churches Want Special Treatment or Not?

P.S. I'd wager that most of the "left" also supports *O Centro*--indeed, many might even argue for a *constitutionally* compelled exemption for congregational ceremonial rituals of that kind. This is all speculative, of course. On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 7:27 PM, Marty Lederman <

Re: Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens

terest in not violating the Free Speech Clause. On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Marty Lederman < martin.leder...@law.georgetown.edu> wrote: > Now that Paul Clement has filed a cert. petition > <http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/16-814-cert-petition.pdf> > in t

Making sense of Hosanna-Tabor (and the absurd nursing-worshipper hypo)

I agree entirely with Chip that the Court in H-T eschewed Sherbert/Yoder-type balancing. The important questions going forward, however, are (i) *why *it did so -- i.e., what the justification is for the church's absolute immunity w/r/t "ministers" and antidiscrimination laws; and (ii) whether

Re: Church excludes nursing woman

ood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law, Emeritus > George Washington University Law School > 2000 H St., NW > Washington, DC 20052 > 301-928-9178 <(301)%20928-9178> (mobile, preferred) > 202-994-7053 <(202)%20994-7053> (office) > Co-author (with Professor Robert Tuttle)

Johnson Amendment E.O.

FYI: https://takecareblog.com/blog/what-s-all-this-fuss-about-the-johnson-amendment Please let me know if you notice any mistakes, thanks. -- Marty Lederman Georgetown University Law Center 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 202-662-9937

Re: Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens

Paul Clement's reply brief <http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/16-814-pet-cert-reply.pdf>. Case schedule for Conference on 05/18. On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Marty Lederman < martin.leder...@law.georgetown.edu> wrote: > Now that Paul Clement has filed a

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

:29 AM, Marty Lederman < martin.leder...@law.georgetown.edu> wrote: > I'm afraid I don't quite understand Doug's other point, which appears to > be that the no-political-activity condition should not be construed to > extend to sermons (or Congress should amend the law to exclude sermon

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

ligious mission*” (emphasis added)? > > > > -David > > > > David B. Cruz > > Professor of Law > > University of Southern California Gould School of Law > > Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 > > U.S.A. > > > > > > *From: *<religionlaw-boun...

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

> Maybe subsidy (vs. penalty?) does the trick; I’ll have to think more on > this. > > > > > > David B. Cruz > > Professor of Law > > University of Southern California Gould School of Law > > Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 > > U.S.A. > > > > >

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

Scott Distinguished Professor of Law > > University of Virginia Law School > > 580 Massie Road > > Charlottesville, VA 22903 > > 434-243-8546 <(434)%20243-8546> > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-bounces@ > lists

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

gt; > 580 Massie Road > > Charlottesville, VA 22903 > > 434-243-8546 <(434)%20243-8546> > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-bounces@ > lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman > *Sent:* Thursday, May 4, 2017

Re: Johnson Amendment E.O.

Never mind!: https://takecareblog.com/blog/this-executive-order-on-religion-is-thankfully-a-dud On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Marty Lederman < martin.leder...@law.georgetown.edu> wrote: > Just came across this from David Saperstein’s testimony > <https://oversight.house

<    2   3   4   5   6   7