Linked here:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/01/opening-briefs-in-hobby-lobby-and.html
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.comwrote:
Official word from the Court:
All briefs for an amicus curiae must be filed on or before Tuesday,
January 28, 2014. An
Just a quick point to quibble with the factual premises of the
selectivity argument. Plans offered by small business *do *have to
include the relevant preventive services, including -- but hardly limited
to -- contraception services. (The services also include cholesterol
screening; colorectal
To follow up on Marty's last point --In the Milwaukee Archdiocese bankruptcy,
the AD is arguing that the religious exemptions in the federal bankruptcy code
trigger strict scrutiny. I agree w Marty's implicit point -- that makes
little sense.
Our opening briefs to the 7 th Cir are due on
Marty,
Quick clarification: Do small business have to offer plans? (I know that small
businesses are not subject to the same Title VII standards as large businesses,
so there is strong legislative precedent for treating small businesses
differently than, say, large closely held for profits
*No* businesses have to offer plans (as I've explained in several posts at
Balkinization). But if a plan does so, it must include preventive services.
And if the employer -- large or small -- does not offer a plan, its employees
will be eligible for an exchange plan, which must also include
I suppose I need to be more specific. Are small businesses subject to the same
taxes/penalties/fees/tithes/required payments to the government that large
businesses are subject to if they do not provide a health plan?
On Jan 11, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote:
I take it that RFRA and Lukumi incorporate a means test, not just an ends test.
If the government can meet its goal without forcing small employers to
subsidize it, why not with a small class of large for profit corps? The
government may have a good answer -- I don't mean to imply that it
Not sure I understand what you're saying here, Nathan.
The law is designed so that virtually all plans -- whether employer plans,
or Medicaid, or Medicare, or exchange plans -- provide access to cost-free
preventive services coverage (including but by no means limited to
contraceptive coverage).
Marty,
I ran out of space on the other chain. Thanks for carefully responding to my
questions, and I'm sorry for any confusion.
I think nonreligious statutory exemptions could be relevant to RFRA and First
Amendment analyses in at least three different ways.
First, they could suggest that
Footnote 2 of the government's brief appears to disclaim, and rebut, the
view that large employers are free to drop health insurance and pay the
taxes.
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA
I don't read it to say anything of the sort: Footnote 2 is about what can
happen if an employer *that* *sponsors a plan* fails to include required
coverage.
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Douglas Laycock dlayc...@virginia.eduwrote:
Footnote 2 of the government’s brief appears to disclaim,
Aah! I think that's right.
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
Indeed, just one week ago, in its *Little Sisters *brief, the government
told the Court this:
The preventive-services coverage provision in general, and the
contraceptive-coverage provision in particular, apply only if an employer
offers a group health plan. Employers, however, are not required
Nathan: I agree that the government has other ways to achieve its
compelling interest -- paying for the coverage itself -- if by coverage
you mean health insurance coverage. And thus, for unemployed persons,
and employees who do not have access to employer-offered insurance, that's
exactly what
Maybe I'm missing your point, but it seems to me that forcing religious
employers to such a coercive choice hardly relieves the burden. Why should an
employer be forced, because of its religious convictions to refuse to offer its
employees health coverage? The fact that there is a legal
Derek: I wasn't making any point here except that, contrary to the
assumptions of virtually all plaintiffs and courts of appeals, there is no
legal *requirement* that any employer offer its employees a health
insurance plan. That's not a non sequitur -- it's a straightforward
refutation of a
16 matches
Mail list logo
