The Court held that a defendant is a "prevailing party," potentially eligible
for fees, if it prevails either on a ground going to the merits or on some
other grounds, which here included statute of limitations and the EEOC's
failure to properly investigate before filing suit.
The Court did no
The lack of clarity in the record arises the state’s decision to pursue its
goals by indirection. Nothing in the text of the regulations prohibits refusals
to stock and deliver drugs for religious, moral, or ethical reasons. Yet
everyone understands that that is the whole point. Nothing in the t
ed to likewise
sanction similarly situated pharmacies that have invoked other sorts of reasons
for non-stocking, or otherwise treated such pharmacies more favorably than the
state treats Stormans.
But we're not there yet.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c)
mailto
There are extremely detailed findings of fact that conclude exactly what Steve
doubts and Marty appears to deny: pharmacies fail to stock or deliver drugs,
and refer folks elsewhere, for a vast array of reasons. The district court
further found that the Commission had never, ever, interfered wit
The only piece of information I'm aware of is that one of the government's
briefs in Zubik says there are only 87 of them.
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
From: religionlaw-bou
I doubt that any one has first-hand knowledge. But I will offer two
suppositions with reasonably high confidence.
First, the insurer paying for contraception directly should have no greater
confidentiality risk than the insurer paying through the insurance plan. I
doubt that a second insurance
I did not sign the scholars’ brief, and it is drawing about the reaction I
expected. But nothing in the brief implies anything like the Ollie’s BBQ
analogy.
The claim in the brief is that discrimination confined to one very narrow
context, an especially sensitive context with its own legal prot
I did not sign the scholars’ brief, and it is drawing about the reaction I
expected. But nothing in the brief implies anything like the Ollie’s BBQ
analogy.
The claim in the brief is that discrimination confined to one very narrow
context, an especially sensitive context with its own legal prot
4-243-8546
From: Eric J Segall [eseg...@gsu.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 6:09 PM
To: Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c)
Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Noteworthy, puzzling scholars' brief in Arlene Flowers
I fai
is secular for you.
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
From: Eric J Segall [mailto:eseg...@gsu.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 9:07 PM
To: Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c)
Cc: Law
Eric is talking about disparate impact; Eugene was talking about disparate
treatment.
If someone deliberately acts on the basis of sex, race, etc., motive is
generally irrelevant. If government acts on some neutral criterion that has
disparate impact on the basis of race, sex, etc., there is no
e
On Oct 12, 2016, at 3:45 PM, Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c)
mailto:hd...@virginia.edu>> wrote:
Eric is talking about disparate impact; Eugene was talking about disparate
treatment.
If someone deliberately acts on the basis of sex, race, etc., motive is
generally irrelevant. If government
Yes. This is the closest he came to expressing an opinion that I know about.
Going into O Centro, we all wondered if those who voted for Smith would also be
hostile to the statute. It turned out that they weren’t. I think that is a
better indicator than Hobby Lobby, because that had become a cu
The Standing Rock Sioux’s RFRA request for a TRO is here:
https://embed.contagiousmedia.com/embed/sub/item-ol3xgp-38nio?sb=10497046&cb=1486655474&rds=
They claim to own the waters of Lake Oahe, thus distinguishing unsuccessful
religious liberty claims by tribes in Lyng, Navajo Nation, and Snoqua
Unanimous affirmance.
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.recent
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
___
To post, s
This case may well be a trial lawyer’s failure to put on the evidence. Lawyers
too often think the burden on religious practice is obvious, and fail to elicit
the testimony that would clearly explain how and why the practice is religious
and important and the challenged rule is a substantial bur
lists.ucla.edu>>
on behalf of Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c)
mailto:hd...@virginia.edu>>
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 3:37:26 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; Marty Lederman
Subject: RE: Re-upping: Sterling: A helpful test case on RFRA burdens
This case may well be a
The judge denied a motion to dismiss in the Culpeper case, which now appears to
be headed for mediation.
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
From: religionla
There is a North Carolina case a few years ago challenging the campus police
forces of religiously affiliated universities as an Establishment Clause
violation. The NC courts upheld the police forces. That looked more like equal
treatment; this looks more like a special deal.
Douglas Laycock
Ro
Giving the church the tires or the money would moot the case. But so far, they
have only announced a policy change, and that does not moot the case—especially
where, as here, the other side has a plausible claim and could immediately sue
the state officials to prevent them from granting the mone
lity make this case -- between the church and the
agency -- justiciable, when both of those parties (there is no "other side")
agree that the church should be eligible to compete, and the church is
receiving the requested relief?
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Laycock, H Do
eran Church moot?
Doug, is the complaint seeking money as damages for wrongful denial? That seems
to run into the 11th. I assumed plaintiffs can only ask for prospective relief
in this case.
Best,
Eric
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 18, 2017, at 5:04 PM, Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c)
mailt
mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>>
on behalf of Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c)
mailto:hd...@virginia.edu>>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 2:21 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot?
I haven't looked at the complaint, bu
ir
grant applications in the future equally with all others is all they can get
(admittedly they'd rather have an injunction) but that seems a slender reed.
Best,
Eric
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 18, 2017, at 5:22 PM, Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c)
mailto:hd...@virginia.edu>> wrote:
I h
t
case.
Best,
Eric
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 18, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c)
mailto:hd...@virginia.edu>> wrote:
Because the Court held that neither a state, nor a state official in his
official capacity, is a “person” within the meaning of § 1983. It is a slightly
round
anguage in other cases involving federal jurisdiction that
Congress didn't intend 1983 to abrogate immunity. Will is only a state court
case.
Best,
Eric
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 18, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c)
mailto:hd...@virginia.edu>> wrote:
Because the Cour
Advocate Health Care does not present the question Mr. Peabody raises, or at
least not squarely. The religious hospitals there do not seek exemption under
some general guarantee of religious liberty; they seek to enforce a specific
exemption that Congress enacted. The case is about statutory int
The funding question resolved in the founding generation was special allocation
of public funds, not part of any broader program or category, to support the
core religious functions of churches -- the salaries of clergy mostly, but also
sometimes the construction of churches, or the income from
y informative and thoughtful points and discussion.
Michael Peabody, Esq.
President,
Founders First Freedom
On Apr 21, 2017 8:13 PM, "Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c)"
mailto:hd...@virginia.edu>> wrote:
The funding question resolved in the founding generation was special allocation
tablishment Clause puts the underlying originalist principles out of
balance, there may be a justification for restoring the balance to honor
originalist principles at a fairly high level of generality.
Mark
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
_
One could teach a constitutional Bible course in public schools. The odds that
they are teaching it that way in Princeton, WV seem vanishingly small. And the
story's quotations from the curriculum seem to eliminate that slim possibility.
Of course there is no constituency for teaching the Bibl
I think people are aware that funding may bring more regulation. Judges tend to
defer to government conditions attached to money, even though some of those
conditions raise serious questions of unconstitutional conditions.
The fear has lost much of its force in part because of Smith and the
und
nding and
regulation of houses of worship? If not, what else explains the change? The end
of the fight between Protestants and Catholics about public funding of
religious schools?
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 6:24 PM Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c)
mailto:hd...@virginia.edu>> wrote:
I think people are awa
Unless there has been some recent change in IRS policy that I don’t know about
and that Marty does not suggest, the Amendment is not limited to “express”
endorsements. The IRS jawboning, which is its only enforcement effort,
describes many things that it views as implicit endorsements, such as v
rther
information.
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c)
mailto:hd...@virginia.edu>> wrote:
Unless there has been some recent change in IRS policy that I don’t know about
and that Marty does not suggest, the Amendment is not limited to “express”
endorsements. The IRS
Those are troubling hypotheticals. I don't think they are as troubling as
telling a minister, priest, or rabbi what he can preach about.
If it's just a front that does nothing but politics, it is not covered by the
bills to exempt endorsements in the ordinary course of the organization’s
acti
Agreed. There is nothing of substance here. Maybe more from the agencies down
the road.
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religi
t from my iPhone
On May 4, 2017, at 2:50 PM, Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c)
mailto:hd...@virginia.edu>> wrote:
Agreed. There is nothing of substance here. Maybe more from the agencies down
the road.
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
7C0%7C0%7C636295397473530238&sdata=DWuE11650gg5C0Ja95yI6jYlNIR70JDYURTj5wz%2FmII%3D&reserved=0>
Alan Brownstein
____________
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
I am juggling multiple deadlines and will not be responding to responses to
this post or participating in a continuing debate. But the principle of neutral
government incentives can largely reconcile recognizing the church’s right to
funds in cases like Trinity Lutheran with its right to regula
The opinion is here. There are also two concurring opinions that for some
reason would not open.
http://www.txcourts.gov/media/1284936/140453.pdf
The merits appear not to have been litigated or decided. The court says the
“only issue” is voluntary cessation. It looks like the school district wa
McCready v, Hoffius was vacated on rehearing and remanded for further
consideration of the compelling interest issue.
But I agree with Marty on the general trend. For-profit entities have not won
exemptions from discrimination laws under the RFRA standard. Most of them
should not win; for the f
.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Laycock, H Douglas
(hdl5c)
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:29 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: landlord/tenant law and RFRA
McCready v, Hoffius was vacated on rehearing and remanded for further
conside
I think this employee would lose under existing Title VII law, for rejecting a
reasonable accommodation. And the RFRA committee reports say that RFRA does not
affect Title VII claims, although that is not in the statutory text.
But if RFRA applied, I think the logic of petitioners' claim is that
Some of these extreme cases will involve compelling government interests,
including most of Paul's hypotheticals. But courts could not question the claim
of substantial burden on religion, according to the Zubik petitioners.
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
Universi
Cases such as those Chip describes probe far too deeply into what the religious
claimant believes. And they are not the only ones. Congress tried to address
such cases in the RLUIPA amendments to RFRA, specifying that a religious
practice need not be compulsory or central to be protected. The br
required of THEM (making turrets, signing a piece of paper, contracting
with a cable company) because of what someone else will do based on their
authorization.
Do you think all of those people have no substantial burden if forced to take
those actions by large fines?
Eric
On Mar 22,
aims are
dangerous even if the government is really trying to force them to authorize
coverage. And from your emails, it now sounds to me like that is not your
position after all (which, at least to me, is a relief!).
Eric
On Mar 22, 2016, at 2:16 PM, Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c)
mailto:hd...@
-8546
From: Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c)
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 5:26 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Zubik / Little Sisters - testing the scope via a hypothetical
I think their argument that courts simply cannot question any claim that
religious exercis
a.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Laycock, H Douglas
(hdl5c)
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 3:26 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Zubik / Little Sisters - testing the scope via a hypothetical
I
Ed says I should have given you a link. Here it is:
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/433121/laycock-retracts-little-sisters?oca7c3QJEi1vSOBr.01
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
43
The cases of the sort Michael describes (and that Chris Lund has described in
public work) are still out there; they still happen. And the cases Paul
Finkelman imagines, in which state RFRAs justify all kinds of discrimination
against gays, are not out there. They have not happened.
But gay ri
in Boerne and HL), then RFRA (and state RFRAs) will
once again become far more palatable to a much broader coalition. But of
course, as Doug notes, if there's no prospect of prevailing in the
contraception and discrimination cases, then there won't be much impetus for
new RFRAs on
.com
c) 518.605.0296
and
Senior Fellow
Democracy, Citizenship and Constitutionalism Program
University of Pennsylvania
Call
Send SMS
Call from mobile
Add to Skype
You'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype
________________
From: "Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c)"
To: Law &a
The Court wants supplemental briefing on whether the government can make the
insurance companies do this without requiring any notice or letter from the
employer.
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA
...
Will
Will Esser --- Charlotte, North Carolina
________
From: "Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c)"
mailto:hd...@virginia.edu>>
To: Paul Finkelman mailto:paul.finkel...@yahoo.com>>;
Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Sen
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
From: Will Esser [mailto:willes...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 3:20 PM
To: Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c) mailto:hd...@virginia.edu>>;
Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>; Paul Finkelman
mailto:paul.fin
The North Carolina legislature also used a club (or maybe a machine gun)
instead of a scalpel. The new law goes vastly beyond fixing the problem you
focus on, and vastly beyond shower rooms and bathrooms.
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law S
I think there's a compilation on the Becket Fund website. There are a lot more
little Blaine Amendments than your list, but they are not all the same, and
maybe a lot of them don't meet your criterion of absoluteness.
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of V
7;t see a compilation on the Becket site, but perhaps I'm not
missing it. Also, my understanding (perhaps mistaken) is that not all of these
provisions are "little Blaine Amendments," at least in the sense of being
similarly motivated.
On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Laycock, H D
60 matches
Mail list logo
