Based on the briefs and oral argument in Hobby Lobby, one thing is already clear: Professor Laycock's contention that the public meaning of RFRA can be discerned by examining the congressional debates over RLPA has had a notable impact. Not only did Paul Clement invoke the argument in Hobby Lobby's merits brief, he then explicitly directed the Court to Professor Laycock's amicus brief during oral argument for the proposition that it "could not be clearer that [Members of Congress] understood that for-profit corporations would be covered."
Prior to oral argument, I offered an initial critique the RFRA/RLPA legislative-history argument in an essay for Vanderbilt's Hobby Lobby roundtable, and Professor Laycock addressed that critique in his piece below. Given the potential importance of the RFRA/RLPA argument to the disposition of the case, my second-round contribution to the roundtable continues to explore the issue: *The Public Meaning of RFRA Versus Legislators' Understanding of RLPA* http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/content/articles/2014/05/Oleske-Response.pdf More broadly, I recommend to folks all of the essays in the Vanderbilt roundtable, which include excellent contributions from Rick Garnett, Fred Gedicks, Andy Koppelman, and Greg Magarian: http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/enbanc/roundtable/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc/ - Jim On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Douglas Laycock <dlayc...@virginia.edu>wrote: > I filed an amicus brief in *Hobby Lobby* and *Conestoga Wood* on the > public meaning of RFRA with respect to coverage of corporations and their > owners, as reflected in congressional debates when Congress belatedly > focused on the issue. There has been some suggestion that that brief was > inconsistent with testimony I gave at the time. Just in case anyone cares, > I have responded to the claim of inconsistency here: > > > > > http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/content/articles/2014/03/Laycock_Response.pdf > > > > > > 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, 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.
