Yes, Wheaton’s application referred to the legal effects of the Form 700. But the legal effects correspond to what reasonably would be expected from its language, the required deliveries and the underlying regulations. (One could imagine a similar notice structure being agreed to in a multiparty commercial transaction in which one party give notices which trigger contingent obligations of another party owed to yet another.) Suppose the problematic form language and third-party deliveries are dispensed with, and the government, for whatever reasons, decides to support continuation of the desired coverage by deeming the college’s notice to the government of its religious objection as having the same effect as a Form 700 sent to the originally required recipients (also requiring the government itself to step in and send notices). It seems to me the college would then have significantly less reason to object through legal means.
Granted, Wheaton will presumably not be pleased that the funding of what it considers objectionable will continue. But it seems to me the college could reasonably take the view that it is responsible for its own actions and the consequences that may ordinarily be expected to flow from them. A governmental “deeming” (and other action the government would need to take) would result in the same funding outcome but only because the deeming changes the ordinarily expected consequences of Wheaton’s more limited action. The result of the changes would be to displace the college from its former position in the causal chain except for the initial act of registering its religious objection with the government. The government will still do what it will do, but without the direct involvement of the college. I do not know what Wheaton will do. But it seems to me if they were to be satisfied with a final outcome as seems to be suggested in the Court’s injunction order, this would not evidence flawed moral reasoning or inconsistency (or for that matter, “increasingly implausible theories of complicity” if this is included in what people are referring to in the other thread). -Mike Watson From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2014 1:44 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Extent of Wheaton College's Objection As I said, we shall see what Wheaton's reaction would be if and when the government were to treat the new notification as having the same legal effect as Form 700. You'll note that their papers describe their legal complicity as being very closely tied to the "legal effects" of Form 700. Becket attorneys on this list could, of course, tell us right now what that reaction would be . . . but if I were them, I'd wait to see what the government does first, and what its legal theory is for whatever it does. ;-)
_______________________________________________ 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.
