The Supreme Court hadn’t decided Hobby Lobby yet, but several federal appeals courts (including the 10th Circuit in the Hobby Lobby case) had already ruled in favor of corporations wanting to exclude contraceptive coverage from their insurance policies, and in the process adopting extremely broad understandings of federal RFRA. So there was certainly concern (well-founded, as it turns out) that the Supreme Court would rule in favor of Hobby Lobby and that it would do so in a manner that vastly changed what most people thought they were supporting in 1993.
Gregory M. Lipper Senior Litigation Counsel Americans United for Separation of Church & State (202) 466-3234 x210 On Mar 27, 2015, at 2:15 PM, Ryan T. Anderson <ryantimothyander...@gmail.com<mailto:ryantimothyander...@gmail.com>> wrote: The reaction to Indiana strikes me as similar to Arizona. Arizona took place well before Hobby Lobby ruling. So the causal relationship you suggest here seems off. Something else explains this. On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com<mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com>> wrote: http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/statement-indiana-religious-freedom-bill If the new Indiana RFRA had been enacted last year, I think it's fair to say, the NCAA would have pulled the Final Four out of Indianapolis; and I think it's safe to predict that the NCAA tourney won't be coming back to Indiana anytime soon. Think about that -- a basketball boycott in Indiana! How far we've come . . . RFRA has gone from being benign, milquetoast legislation that garnered support across the political spectrum 20 years ago -- like Chevrolet and apple pie -- to becoming the political equivalent of a state adopting the confederate flag, or refusing to recognize MLK Day. I doubt this would have happened if the Hobby Lobby Court, like the Court in Lee, Jimmy Swaggart, Tony & Susan Alamo, etc., would have rejected the accommodation claim 9-0. Of course, the market will ultimately undo the damage: In order to preserve states' economic competitiveness, their RFRAs will either be repealed or construed to recreate the pre-Smith FEC regime. The more interesting question is what Justice Alito's initiative augurs for the future of religious accommodations more broadly. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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.
