There is a circuit split on that, and the cases holding RFRA inapplicable are
clearly wrong. They read “relief against a government” to mean “only against a
government,” but the word only does not appear. The drafting history is clear
that it means “including against a government;” unfortunatel
But the court decisions refusing to recognize RFRA claims in suits between
private parties even where the suit arises under federal statute point the
other way-although by analogy to Shelly and NY TImes v Sullivan,a court
decision is no less action of government than an enforcement action by a
I do not think RFRA is off the table, for the reasons you point out. But apart
from compelling interest, it is also clear that a statute cannot prevent
enforcement of the Constitution, and that a statute that tries to do so is
unconstitutional as applied. So it would be essential to devise a RFR
I have a conceptual question that I’ve been trying to get my mind around.
Could the *federal* RFRA be invoked by someone like Kim Davis (whether or not
the state has its own RFRA), arguing that a federal court order—that is, an
order that is designed to enforce the 14th Amendment—is action of th
I didn’t think the complicity argument was plausible until Hobby Lobby said
otherwise.
> On Sep 16, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Michael Masinter
> wrote:
>
> What plausible reading of religious freedom empowers Ms. Davis to prohibit
> her deputies from issuing marriage licenses because of her religious
What plausible reading of religious freedom empowers Ms. Davis to prohibit her
deputies from issuing marriage licenses because of her religious objections to
same sex marriage? I am genuinely astonished by the persistent claim that, in
the name of religious freedom, we should compel license app
I don't think anyone understands the clerk's office to be remotely like a
judge's office. The judge exercises an expert judgment for which only
another judge can be substituted. Even if his staff occasionally signs her
name, no one thinks her staff can legitimately decide cases.
Issuing marriage l
To Kevin's point, a somewhat similar accommodation is playing out in North
Carolina. As readers of this list will recall, North Carolina passed
legislation which allows magistrates to opt out of performing any marriages,
provided that each county was required to continue to make secular marriag
I believe this entire discussion has been overtaken by events, hasn't it?
Mason is issuing licenses in a form that (apparently) Davis does not object
to. That should be the end of the matter (and should have been the
beginning, too), at least unless and until any couple receiving such a
license co
I agree that only the office holder gets an exemption, not a unit of
government. My argument is premised on the office holder getting an exemption,
and so is Davis's.
Once an office holder is recused, the question becomes who carries out the
duties instead. That turns on who has legal authorit
10 matches
Mail list logo
