With regard to Jim's post (and Chip and Bob's piece), I appreciate the argument that in employment cases RFRA should be interpreted the same way that Title VII has been interpreted --- essentially denying all RFRA claims that would impose more than de minimis costs on third parties or the public. But I have several questions about it.
First, if we accept Chip and Bob's argument that accommodating Hobby Lobby would impose significant and serious costs on third parties, resolving this case against Hobby Lobby doesn't require an interpretation of RFRA that is as limiting as the one that they propose. Aren't there harms that are more than de minimis, yet not sufficiently costly to justify the substantial burdening of religious liberty? Second, exactly why should the scope of RFRA be so drastically constrained in employment cases? What distinguishes these kinds of cases from other accommodation cases - many of which will also impose some costs on third parties, the state, or the general public? Third, many commentators have argued that the cost of accommodating Hobby Lobby should be construed to be the cost of the government setting up an alternative insurance framework for providing contraceptive coverage for the employees of religiously exempt employers. The literal cost of doing so may not be very high. There are ways of conditioning the granting of any accommodation to offset whatever those costs may be to a considerable extent. Providing insurance coverage would not require administratively complex, individualized interventions by the government. And, for many of us, the government providing health care coverage is the most desirable and efficient way of extending health insurance coverage in our society in the first place. The use of employers as a conduit for providing coverage provides few if any advantages in comparison to a government insurance program. So if we are focusing on the cost of accommodating Hobby Lobby, why isn't this the cost we should be evaluating. Typically in other rights contexts, we focus on the cost of mitigation, not the potential harm of unmitigated consequences. Thus, if an unpopular speaker wants to speak in a location where his message is likely to poorly received, the government cannot silence the speaker on the grounds that allowing him to speak would cause disorder and damage to property or persons. Instead, the harm would be the cost of hiring sufficient police and public safety personnel to maintain order at the event. Typically, except in the most egregious cases, the government does not have a compelling state interest in avoiding those financial costs of mitigation. Alan On a different note, I want to second Marty's recommendation of the symposium over at SCOTUS Blog. Specifically, I highly recommend folks take a look at Chip and Bob's piece, which makes an important argument calling for symmetry between the treatment of employee accommodations under Title VII and employer accommodations under RFRA (in both cases this avoids establishment concerns raised by exemptions that impose more than de minimis burdens on others). Chip and Bob's piece is available here: http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/02/symposium-religious-questions-and-saving-constructions/ - Jim
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
