In poking around further in the legislative history of RLPA, I think there
is evidence that there might *not *have been a common understanding about
the applicability of RLPA and RFRA to for-profit *corporations* as opposed
to individual landlords:
"The question of whether a corporate employer or
There is no "all" in the legislative process. There are only competing
interests and conflicting sides. I am not going to belabor this for this
exchange, but as someone who was as intimately involved in this as Doug, but on
the opposite side, his description encompasses some but not all of wha
All the listserv's conversation on the contraception mandate, and the rolling
of the calendar to August 1, prompt me to re-send this Call for Papers to the
list. The initial deadline is August 15, although only an abstract is needed.
We are still definitely soliciting submissions and encourage
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 no
I know I'm not the listmod, but could we please keep the posts on topic for the
listserv?
David B. Cruz
Professor of Law
University of Southern California Gould School of Law
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071
U.S.A.
On Aug 1, 2013, at 6:32 PM, "Volokh, Eugene"
mailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu>> wrote:
No,
An additional fact: the civil rights issue came into public view after the ACLU
wrote a letter to Congress-whether to the whole house or the judiciary
committee I don't recall- spelling out in detail the cases in which civil
liberties and religious liberty claims clashed. It was that letter that
RLUIPA does not apply to fair housing laws because it applies only to land use
regulation and institutionalized persons, and it exprssly defines land use
regulation as zoning and landmarking. Period. No mystery to explain.
My recollection is that that definition was added late in the process. I
No, Marci. You personalized this.
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 5:20 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Contraception mandate
I was not particularly
I was not particularly interested in solely Doug's statements at the time, but
rather his reasoning in his new piece. Marc and now Eugene have personalized
this.
There is no need for that.
Here is a fact: Many following enactment of RLUIPA have stated unequivocally
that the land use provis
Dear colleagues,
"Religious liberty" is, of course, a fundamental human right, and so it is not
clear to me why it should be troubling or surprising that legal regimes would
be embraced by human-rights advocates (like Marc, Doug, etc.) that respect that
right by insisting, e.g., that majority-
Indeed, Marci didn’t say Doug was “lying,” but when one says of
a first-hand witness that the “history, as I knew it, was distinctive from his
account,” and “Not sure how to square [Doug’s past reassurances] w Doug's
current statements,” the implicit accusation seems to me to be
I think citing to a listserv discussion without confirming with the author is
bad form unless one is simply crediting an idea that one is using that one
first learned on the listserv. I think using an idea posted as a foil (or
worse) without giving the author the opportunity to clarify and exte
Marc- I didn't say Doug was "lying." I said that the history, as I knew it,
was distinctive from his account. I think we can discuss the facts
on the listserv without having to stoop to such namecalling.
Marci
Marci A. Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo Schoo
With all due respect, Marc, RLPA was doomed by many forces, not just the civil
rights community. The American Academy of Pediatrics, and many other leading
organizations
for the protection of children took a very strong stand. We lobbied Congress
together as well (we didn't have "chairs"). Th
Saw it. In the next post, she accuses doug of lying to left wing groups about
RLPA and civil rights. I've responded defending Doug.
Marc
From: Saperstein, David [mailto:dsaperst...@rac.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 07:25 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Contrace
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 1, 2013, at 4:06 PM, "Marci Hamilton"
mailto:hamilto...@aol.com>> wrote:
I think it is critically important to remember that RLPA was rejected
categorically by the members as much too broad. The history w respect to
anything other than land use and prisons are the
Doug and I chaired the drafting committee pushing RLPA. We also lobbied
Congress and left wing groups together when the civil rights issued surfaced.
Then and now the fight has also clearly been understood as between carving out
civil rights laws entirely and leaving them in but acknowledging th
Doug and I chaired the drafting committee pushing RLPA. We also lobbied
Congress and left wing groups together when the civil rights issued surfaced.
Then and now the fight has also clearly been understood as between carving out
civil rights laws entirely and leaving them in but acknowledging th
I think it is critically important to remember that RLPA was rejected
categorically by the members as much too broad. The history w respect to
anything other than land use and prisons are the only histories that have any
reliable content to them for future interpretation.
Post-enactment legisl
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
As I understand the process, Doug reassured folks on the left that RLPA as
applied to land use law would not apply to the civil rights laws, particularly
the fair housing laws. Not sure how to square that w Doug's current
statements.
I also find the in pari materia argument disingenuous at be
Thanks for the reminder that Thomas, Swanner, and other similar housing
cases were part of the RLPA discussion. I see from a quick look at the RLPA
House Report that they were explicitly discussed there, and there is a
footnote in the same general discussion rejecting the argument that
"business co
Sorry. The first sentence below was supposed to say "there were cases that
the religious objectors deserved to win."
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
From: relig
Supporters of RLPA said that civil rights claimants would win most of the
cases on compelling interest grounds, but that civil rights had come to be a
very broad category, and there the religious objectors deserved to win.
They said the RLPA standard should be uniformly applied to all cases, as
wi
A few comments and one question upon an initial read of Professor Laycock
and Professor Dane's pieces.
First, with respect to Professor Laycock's piece, I think it is difficult
to overstate the importance of one of the nation's most prominent and
respected advocates for a broad conception of relig
I hesitate a bit to pitch my piece here, since it could accelerate a trend that
we might not want if the list is otherwise active; but since it's not active
for now, I'll refer to my own new piece, which is likewise on (part of) the
mandate and the culture wars and aims to express a certain posi
By coincidence, I just posted a related piece, broader than Perry’s in some
ways, narrower in others:
http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2304427
The piece is framed in terms of the larger culture wars, and does not offer a
full doctrinal analysis of the contraception litigation. But buried i
Hi all,
I've posted a short essay -- half of a projected exchanged
-- that tries to speak sanely about the contraceptive mandate debate.
The piece offers a doctrinal analysis, but also explores how the debate
-- and in particular the overblown claims by both sides -- "suggest some
imperfectly
28 matches
Mail list logo
