Hobby Lobby posts
Since no one else has mentioned it, I will: Eugene recently published a remarkable series of posts on the case -- so much there that virtually everyone on this listserv is sure to agree with some arguments and disagree with others. It's an amazing public service, whatever one thinks of the merits. He and I turned the posts into a single, 53-page (single-spaced!) Word document for your convenience: www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/hobbylobby.docx I've just started my own series of posts on the case on Balkinization -- links to the first three below. The second is about the thorny contraception/abortifacient issue (nominally) in play in the two cases the Court granted. In the third post, I endeavor to explain that the case is fundamentally different from what all the courts and plaintiffs (and press) have assumed, because there is in fact no employer mandate to provide contraception coverage. http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-i-framing-issues.html http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-ii-whats-it-all-about.html http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-iiitheres-no-employer.html Thanks to those of you who have already offered very useful provocations and arguments on-list; I'd welcome further reactions, of course. ___ 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.
Re: Hobby Lobby posts
In the interest of collecting arguments related to Hobby Lobby, here are links to some posts that Nelson Tebbe, Richard Schragger, and I have written on Establishment Clause arguments related to the case: The Establishment Clause and the Contraception Mandate http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-establishment-clause-and.html Hobby Lobby and the Establishment Clause, Part II: What Counts as a Burden on Employees? http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-and-establishment-clause.html Hobby Lobby and the Establishment Clause, Part III: Reconciling Amos and Cutter http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-and-establishment-clause_9.html And Nelson Tebbe and I had this article in Slate: Obamacare and Religion and Arguing off the Wall: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/11/obamacare_birth_control_mandate_lawsuit_how_a_radical_argument_went_mainstream.htm On Dec 16, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Marty Lederman wrote: Since no one else has mentioned it, I will: Eugene recently published a remarkable series of posts on the case -- so much there that virtually everyone on this listserv is sure to agree with some arguments and disagree with others. It's an amazing public service, whatever one thinks of the merits. He and I turned the posts into a single, 53-page (single-spaced!) Word document for your convenience: www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/hobbylobby.docx I've just started my own series of posts on the case on Balkinization -- links to the first three below. The second is about the thorny contraception/abortifacient issue (nominally) in play in the two cases the Court granted. In the third post, I endeavor to explain that the case is fundamentally different from what all the courts and plaintiffs (and press) have assumed, because there is in fact no employer mandate to provide contraception coverage. http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-i-framing-issues.html http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-ii-whats-it-all-about.html http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-iiitheres-no-employer.html Thanks to those of you who have already offered very useful provocations and arguments on-list; I'd welcome further reactions, of course. ___ 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.
RE: Hobby Lobby posts
I much appreciate Marty's kind words about my posts, and I'm very interested in his posts. The argument that there's actually no employer mandate for RFRA purposes (the Part III post) strikes me as especially interesting, though I'm somewhat skeptical about it. Marty, could you post an excerpt of that post on this list? I'd love to hear what others have to say about it. Thanks, Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 10:53 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Hobby Lobby posts Since no one else has mentioned it, I will: Eugene recently published a remarkable series of posts on the case -- so much there that virtually everyone on this listserv is sure to agree with some arguments and disagree with others. It's an amazing public service, whatever one thinks of the merits. He and I turned the posts into a single, 53-page (single-spaced!) Word document for your convenience: www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/hobbylobby.docxhttp://www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/hobbylobby.docx I've just started my own series of posts on the case on Balkinization -- links to the first three below. The second is about the thorny contraception/abortifacient issue (nominally) in play in the two cases the Court granted. In the third post, I endeavor to explain that the case is fundamentally different from what all the courts and plaintiffs (and press) have assumed, because there is in fact no employer mandate to provide contraception coverage. http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-i-framing-issues.html http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-ii-whats-it-all-about.html http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-iiitheres-no-employer.html Thanks to those of you who have already offered very useful provocations and arguments on-list; I'd welcome further reactions, of course. ___ 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.
RE: Hobby Lobby posts
I also thought that Marty's argument that there is actually no employer mandate for RFRA purposes was extremely thoughtful and interesting. I thought about this analogy while considering his analysis. Suppose the federal government decides to return to a system of conscription that includes non-military, national service. All draftees are told up front that they can either serve in the military or in a wide variety of alternative service jobs. There is no specific conscientious objector exemption provided by the conscription statute. Would a religious pacifist have a claim under RFRA? As long as there were alternative service jobs available that did not violate the draftees religious beliefs, and the alternative jobs were not more demanding and dangerous than military service, I take it Marty's analysis would suggest that no viable RFRA claim would exist. A draftee might argue that serving the government in any capacity under a national service plan would violate his religious beliefs, but I think that position was never accepted in conscientious objector cases and presumably it would not be accepted for this new system of national service. Of course, as Marty recognizes, there may be questions as to the costs employers actually incur if they choose to pay the tax alternative (e.g. the employer being placed at a competitive disadvantage) just as in my analogy there may be questions about the burdens imposed on individuals choosing non-military service. But those questions do not undercut the foundation of his argument. Alan Brownstein From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 12:03 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby posts I much appreciate Marty's kind words about my posts, and I'm very interested in his posts. The argument that there's actually no employer mandate for RFRA purposes (the Part III post) strikes me as especially interesting, though I'm somewhat skeptical about it. Marty, could you post an excerpt of that post on this list? I'd love to hear what others have to say about it. Thanks, Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 10:53 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Hobby Lobby posts Since no one else has mentioned it, I will: Eugene recently published a remarkable series of posts on the case -- so much there that virtually everyone on this listserv is sure to agree with some arguments and disagree with others. It's an amazing public service, whatever one thinks of the merits. He and I turned the posts into a single, 53-page (single-spaced!) Word document for your convenience: www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/hobbylobby.docxhttp://www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/hobbylobby.docx I've just started my own series of posts on the case on Balkinization -- links to the first three below. The second is about the thorny contraception/abortifacient issue (nominally) in play in the two cases the Court granted. In the third post, I endeavor to explain that the case is fundamentally different from what all the courts and plaintiffs (and press) have assumed, because there is in fact no employer mandate to provide contraception coverage. http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-i-framing-issues.html http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-ii-whats-it-all-about.html http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/12/hobby-lobby-part-iiitheres-no-employer.html Thanks to those of you who have already offered very useful provocations and arguments on-list; I'd welcome further reactions, of course. ___ 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.
