Obviously, I'm not nearly as sanguine as Doug about the possible effects of Hobby Lobby on all these other cases in the commercial sector. For one thing, the Court's rationale if it rules for Hobby Lobby, on both substantial burden and compelling interest, will not in any way, shape or form reflect the idea that this is a one-off because it arises "in a context where government attempted to override long held and clearly stated teaching of two of the largest religious groups in the country."
What's more, this *isn't* a case in which the government has attempted to override the teachings of two large religious groups. Which teaching is that? To be sure, the regulation reflects the view that contraception is socially valuable, which doesn't "override" any religious teachings, but which of course is not consistent with them. More to the point, that's certainly not a new position for the federal government to adopt -- it's been a long time since *Griswold *-- nor one that most of the Justices will reject. On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Douglas Laycock <dlayc...@virginia.edu>wrote: > There is of course nothing in the actual experience of state RFRAs to > support any of the speculative fears in the letter. Litigation has been > scarce; decisions favoring religious claimants have been scarcer. RFRAs > have been significantly under enforced compared to the aspirations of their > drafters. > > > > The recent string of wins under federal RFRA in the contraception cases > arise in a context where government attempted to override long held and > clearly stated teaching of two of the largest religious groups in the > country (Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants). Even if those wins > hold up in the Supreme Court, which is far from assured, there is little > reason to think they would be replicated in other contexts. > > > > 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: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:21 PM > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Subject:* letter opposing Mississippi RFRA > > > > A group of ten legal academics, including myself and a number of others > who post on this list, have prepared a letter urging the legislative defeat > of a proposed Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Mississippi. The letter > has recently been delivered and made publicly available. It can be found > here: http://www.thirdway.org/publications/795 > > > > -- > > Ira C. Lupu > F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law, Emeritus > George Washington University Law School > 2000 H St., NW > Washington, DC 20052 > (202)994-7053 > > Co-author (with Professor Robert Tuttle) of "Secular Government, Religious > People" (forthcoming, summer 2014, Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.) > My SSRN papers are here: > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg > > _______________________________________________ > 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. >
_______________________________________________ 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.
