Re: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case

alth*. He says that of course Stormans >>> can bring “a future as-applied challenge to the Board’s regulations.” But >>> yesterday, a much less thorough litigation of a pre-enforcement challenge >>> was obviously res judicata in a post-enforcement challenge based on actua

Re: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case

n actual >> experience. It is hard to see how he can have it both ways. >> >> >> >> Douglas Laycock >> >> Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law >> >> University of Virginia Law School >> >> 580 Massie Road >> >> Ch

RE: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case

vinson, Sanford V Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 12:04 PM To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case Does anyone seriously believe that the Supreme Court is capable of offering a “constitutional definition of religion” that would not

RE: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case

gionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: Re: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case Once again, Welsh, like Seeger, was construing a statute, not the FEC. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:18 PM, Christopher Lund <l...@wayne.edu<mailto:l...@wayne.edu>> wrote: Isn’t the simp

RE: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case

la.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 12:32 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case Once again, Welsh, like Seeger, was construing a statute, not the FEC.

Re: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case

28, 2016 12:08 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > Subject: Re: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case > > From Frazee: > > There is no doubt that “[o]nly beliefs rooted in religion are protected by >

RE: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case

-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 12:08 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: Re: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case From Frazee: There is no doubt that “[o]nly beliefs rooted i

RE: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case

lto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:44 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free

Re: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case

a 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 *James Ole

Re: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case

8546 > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *James Oleske > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:28 AM > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > *Subjec

Re: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case

o: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:44 AM > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Subject:* Re: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case > > > > *Seeger *provides a defin

RE: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case

. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case The bulk of Justice Alito's dissent focuses on the argument Stormans made at the beginning of its cert petition in support of summary reversal: the pharmacy regulations amount to religious targeting akin to the targeting in Lukumi. (Marty notes below t

Re: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case

un...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *James Oleske > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:25 AM > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Subject:* Re: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case > > > > The bulk o

RE: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case

mics Subject: Re: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case The bulk of Justice Alito's dissent focuses on the argument Stormans made at the beginning of its cert petition in support of summary reversal: the pharmacy regulations amount to religious targeting akin to the targeting in Lu

Re: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case

The bulk of Justice Alito's dissent focuses on the argument Stormans made at the beginning of its cert petition in support of summary reversal: the pharmacy regulations amount to religious targeting akin to the targeting in Lukumi. (Marty notes below the central problem with this argument: the

Re: Cert. Petition Filed in Pharmacy Free Exercise Case

This case is *very *confused, and complicated, as a factual matter, by virtue of the interactions of two different Washington regulations--the "Stocking" rule and the "Delivery" rule--and the fact that the State has not enforced either rule against Storman's or any other religious objector. For

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

A quick update on the petition in Stormans. After the petition was relisted for conference several times, the lower court record was requested on May 19 and received on May 26, and the petition is back on the schedule for tomorrow's conference (June 2). As I've said before, I think some of the