@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Wed, Oct 3, 2012 2:47 pm
Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Dear Marci,
The substantial burden theory here is not new, it’s merely another factual
iteration of what the Supreme Court has
: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Marci, you are arbitarily singling out different steps in a parallel sequence
of
events.
Thomas was asked to help assemble tank turrets. Others would put the turrets
into tanks. Still others, maybe
-Original Message-
From: Gaubatz, Derek dgaub...@imb.org
To: religionlaw religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Wed, Oct 3, 2012 2:47 pm
Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Dear Marci,
The substantial burden theory here is not new
dgaub...@imb.org
To: religionlaw religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Wed, Oct 3, 2012 2:47 pm
Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Dear Marci,
The substantial burden theory here is not new, it’s merely another factual
iteration
...@aol.com
-Original Message-
From: Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Thu, Oct 4, 2012 11:25 am
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Marci
Marci, you are arbitarily singling out different steps in a parallel sequence
of events.
Thomas was asked to help assemble tank turrets. Others would put the turrets
into tanks. Still others, maybe, would use the tanks to kill people. Or maybe
not.
The bishops' view is that they are being
Cathy Kaveny asked me to send along this reaction to some of the issues
we've been discussing:
Hi all,
This is a fascinating discussion. I'm sorry I can't participate more
because I have to get ready for a couple of talks.
So I'll limit myself to three quick points.
1. Is the cooperation
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Doug,
Would your view -- expressed in the third paragraph of your post -- be
different if the HHS mandated contraceptive coverage, preventive
, October 02, 2012 11:36 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
** **
Doug,
Would your view -- expressed in the third paragraph of your post -- be
different
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Doug,
Would your view -- expressed in the third paragraph of your post -- be
different if the HHS mandated contraceptive coverage, preventive care, etc
Can I ask a quick question for people like Marci, Marty, and others who
doubt the existence of a “substantial burden”?
What about United States v. Lee? The Amish object to paying Social Security
taxes. The government makes them. The decision to use the taxes for Social
Security is the
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Well, if the claim of a religious burden is -- as the plaintiffs in virtually
all of these cases has alleged -- based upon the notion that the employer
Re: Chris Lund's question about Lee -- The Amish take care of their own who
are disabled or no longer able to work. They didn't want to pay twice --
once for FICA contributions, and again in their own community. And the
FICA contributions were earmarked for just that use.
Employers objecting to
...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 7:49 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
That's the point, Mark. The employer freely, and without
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Well, if the claim of a religious burden is -- as the plaintiffs in
virtually all of these cases has alleged -- based upon the notion that the
employer
issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
That's the point, Mark. The employer freely, and without objection, enters
into an employment contract with the employee to pay wages in exchange for
labor, knowing full
:* Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
** **
That's the point, Mark. The employer freely, and without objection,
enters into an employment contract with the employee to pay wages in
exchange for labor, knowing full well that some
...@lists.ucla.edu]
On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 7:03 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Well, if the claim of a religious burden is -- as the plaintiffs
or the compelling-interest
parts of it.
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 10:59 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate
:10 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
The formal findings in RFRA reference Sherbert and Yoder, but not Thomas.
Significant?
Should Thomas even apply to artificial
-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 11:17 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Chris: You and Marc raise absolutely valid points about
am
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Well, if the claim of a religious burden is -- as the plaintiffs in virtually
all of these cases has alleged -- based upon the notion that the employer is
prohibited from permitting its
@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
The burden in these cases is a newly configured theory of burden, wherein the
believer is attempting to alter a neutral, generally applicable system
so
...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
hamilto...@aol.commailto:hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 10:22 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
The burden in these cases
...@lists.ucla.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 10:22 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
The burden in these cases is a newly configured theory of burden, wherein
...@lists.ucla.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 10:22 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
The burden in these cases is a newly configured theory of burden, wherein
, VA 22903
434-243-8546
From: b...@jmcenter.org [mailto:b...@jmcenter.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 1:23 PM
To: Douglas Laycock
Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Doug, thank you for responding but I still
of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
** **
*From:* b...@jmcenter.org [mailto:b...@jmcenter.org]
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 03, 2012 1:23 PM
*To:* Douglas Laycock
*Subject:* RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges
...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher Lund
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 9:41 AM
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Marty, obviously worthy questions. No answers, just some
for Law Academics
Cc: M Cathleen Kaveny
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
If I understand the Catholic doctrine, Doug, in your hypothetical the church
will have chosen to save the $200,000 by having the kids dumped. That would
, October 03, 2012 3:26 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Cc:* M Cathleen Kaveny
*Subject:* Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
** **
If I understand the Catholic doctrine, Doug, in your hypothetical the
church will have
Kaveny
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
If I understand the Catholic doctrine, Doug, in your hypothetical the church
will have chosen to save the $200,000 by having the kids dumped. That would
be a form of (presumptively
...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 03, 2012 4:57 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Cc:* M Cathleen Kaveny
*Subject:* Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
** **
Doug: Is it actually
Cathleen Kaveny'
Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Well, Marty's response at least seems to agree that saving money doesn't take
away the claim.
Does following government orders take away the claim? If it did, as Marty
notes
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: 'M Cathleen Kaveny'
Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
A “following orders” defense disadvantages religions that have strong belief in
obeying the authorities, or that balance the need
issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Mon, Oct 1, 2012 1:49 pm
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Rob's thoughts are well worth reading -- he puts his finger on a bunch of
questions that are sure
: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 8:01 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
My post on the analogy between exemption from military service and exemption
from abortion was addressed to Marci's claim that there should be nothing
special about objection to abortion. That is a much broader claim than just the
ACA
Rick,
I understand the first part -- on which much of the disagreement has centered.
(One can make the distinctions some are advocating, but should one is the hard
part (for some). Drawing the line elsewhere makes more sense to others of us.)
But I'm not sure how the second part works. If a
: Douglas Laycock dlayc...@virginia.edu
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Mon, Oct 1, 2012 12:38 pm
Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Oops. Writing too fast.
What I meant to say
Laycock
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 10:55 AM
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: FW: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Lyng and Bowen involved no regulation of religious behavior. Lee expressly
found a burden
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
A characterization of abortion as a killing, is a religious assessment, not a
medical or constitutional category.
A fetus is not a person for constitutional
-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 5:43 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Rick,
I
Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
I think Lyng (which explicitly relies on Bowen) is indeed relevan to a
substantial burden analysis, because it states that even a potentially
disastrous burden is not the sort of burden that supports a finding of a free
exercise
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 11:10 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
-
From: Marc DeGirolami marc.degirol...@stjohns.edu
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Tue, Oct 2, 2012 11:45 am
Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Chip raises a problem I’ve been having
issues for Law Academics'
Subject: FW: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Lyng and Bowen involved no regulation of religious behavior. Lee expressly
found a burden on free exercise (455 U.S. at 257); the case was decided on
compelling
' religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Tue, Oct 2, 2012 10:43 am
Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
One does not have to believe that early abortions kill human beings to
recognize the profound significance of performing
-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 5:28 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Thanks for the clarification, Doug. I had missed
AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Rick,
I understand the first part -- on which much of the disagreement has centered.
(One can make the distinctions some are advocating, but should
Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
The formal findings in RFRA reference Sherbert and Yoder, but not Thomas.
Significant?
Should Thomas even apply to artificial persons, like holding companies,
corporations, and religious
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Tue, Oct 2, 2012 11:45 am
Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Chip raises a problem I’ve been having a hard time understanding too. A
“burden” does
Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
The formal findings in RFRA reference Sherbert and Yoder, but not
Thomas. Significant?
Should Thomas even apply to artificial persons, like holding companies,
corporations, and religious non-profits? Shouldn't
DeGirolami marc.degirol...@stjohns.edu
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Tue, Oct 2, 2012 11:45 am
Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Chip raises a problem I’ve been having a hard time
@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:42 pm
Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Dear Chip,
Thomas is not mentioned in the findings of RFRA, but it’s holding is certainly
incorporated into the definition of religious
...@law.gwu.edu
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Tue, Oct 2, 2012 1:02 pm
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
I think Marci's distinction between substantial and incidental burdens
, Oct 2, 2012 12:50 pm
Subject: FW: Court Rejects Religious LibertyChallenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
In Bowen, they discovered at trial that she already had a social security
number By the time the case got to the Supreme Court, the claim
, 2012 8:44 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Chip raises a problem I've been having a hard time understanding too. A
burden does seem to imply the willingness to suffer to some
Dear Marci,
If you look back at what I stated below, I was not using the definition of
“religious exercise” to alter what “substantial burden” means. Instead, the
point is that the Act provides a broad definition of what religious exercise
may not be substantially burdened. Therefore, the
: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 2:32 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Doug--Are you
Doug,
Would your view -- expressed in the third paragraph of your post -- be different
if the HHS mandated contraceptive coverage, preventive care, etc. actually saved
the employer money rather than cost the employer money? Would saving money
(i.e., reduced insurance premium) be a substantial
Religious groups and their supporters have been trying to water down
substantial
for years. The Alabama rfra doesn't include substantial and neither did the
failed North Dakota or Colorado
initiatives. One of the reasons the latter failed is overreaching, though it
is also attributable to
Of hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 8:34 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Religious groups and their supporters have been trying to water down
substantial
for years
for Law Academics'
Subject: FW: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Lyng and Bowen involved no regulation of religious behavior. Lee expressly
found a burden on free exercise (455 U.S. at 257); the case was decided on
compelling interest
: Monday, October 01, 2012 10:55 AM
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: FW: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Lyng and Bowen involved no regulation of religious behavior. Lee expressly
found a burden on free exercise (455
Academics'
*Subject:* FW: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
** **
Lyng and Bowen involved no regulation of religious behavior. Lee expressly
found a burden on free exercise (455 U.S. at 257); the case was decided on
compelling
01, 2012 1:48 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
** **
Rob's thoughts are well worth reading -- he puts his finger on a bunch of
questions that are sure to be central
Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 2:52 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Rick, Alan: Allow me to ask the flip-side question of the one Alan
raises: For those of us
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Lund l...@wayne.edu
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Mon, Oct 1, 2012 3:39 pm
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Imagine an observant Jew wants
: Monday, October 01, 2012 4:28 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Chris-- I take it you are arguing that for every religious prisoner with a
dietary restriction, all of them can prove substantial
Academics'
Subject: FW: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Lyng and Bowen involved no regulation of religious behavior. Lee expressly
found a burden on free exercise (455 U.S. at 257); the case was decided on
compelling interest
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 11:52 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Rick, Alan: Allow me to ask the flip-side
...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 4:28 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Chris-- I take it you are arguing that for every religious prisoner
@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Mon, Oct 1, 2012 1:49 pm
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Rob's thoughts are well worth reading -- he puts his finger on a bunch of
questions that are sure to be central to these cases going forward.
One caveat
Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Mon, Oct 1, 2012 1:49 pm
Subject: Re: Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To ACA
Mandate--interpreting substantial burden
Rob's thoughts are well worth reading -- he puts his finger on a bunch of
questions that are sure to be central
My post on the analogy between exemption from military service and exemption
from abortion was addressed to Marci's claim that there should be nothing
special about objection to abortion. That is a much broader claim than just the
ACA issue. And there are people in the pro-choice movement
Thanks for the clarification, Doug. I had missed that particular part of
the exchange.
On the distinction you suggest, I think that the characterization of the
requirement as purchasing a package of services does not fairly describe
what's going on here. Or at the very least, this is nothing
So it is just a question of line drawing after all.
A. Is it at taxation with taxes paying for things you don't like?
B. Or is it paying a salary or wages that will be used by some for things
you don't like?
C. Or is it providing mandated benefits for things you don't like?
On the law we have, the employer buys the insurance policy. Different policies
cover different packages of benefits. These employers feel morally responsible
for the package they buy.
Of course they are generally entitled to define their own religious beliefs.
But in any event, that sense of
79 matches
Mail list logo
