Thankfully, this issue is now beside the point, but just to repeat, the
premise is mistaken: There are not literally millions of women whose
policies are exempted. Almost all women in the United States are or soon
will be entitled to cost-free contraceptive coverage in their insurance
plan.
On
that were really an
imposition to think about.
Sandy
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 4, 2014, at 1:49 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
My initial take:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/07/what-next-in-wheaton-college-is-it-also.html
the expenditure of
government funds to avoid substantially burdening religious liberty without
any further authorization from Congress?
Alan
--
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Marty Lederman
Yes, sorry -- did mean to refer to my B'Zation post, and certainly didn't
mean to be snippy. Alas, as my post suggests, all will not be clear.
That's the point: There's no doubt that the majority in WC thinks it has
come up with an ingenious solution that will satisfy everyone. And perhaps
it
I did not mean implausible to me. I meant that if the actual plaintiffs
in some of these cases had been asked before the HHS Rule about where they
had to draw the line between what forms of conduct their religion forbids
and which it does not, in terms of forbidden cooperation with evil, I
find
the
relevant form, but I agree that that is a legally relevant question (and a
potentially legally dispositive one, if they aren’t sincere).
Eugene
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Saturday
...@lists.ucla.edu
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Saturday, July 05, 2014 8:49 AM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Increasingly implausible theories of complicity
I did not mean implausible to me. I meant that if the actual plaintiffs
of the Court's order, I think Wheaton College is unlikely
to be the entity that presses that argument, no?
- Jim
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 3:50 AM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
Yes, sorry -- did mean to refer to my B'Zation post, and certainly didn't
mean to be snippy
My thoughts on the longer-term ramifications of the decision. The upshot
is that I think it's very important in two respects: (i) the strong
affirmation of the holding in *Thomas *that civil authorities cannot
evaluate religious claims that X is a forbidden form of complicity with
evil; and,
--
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Marty Lederman [
lederman.ma...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Sunday, July 06, 2014 3:36 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Hobby Lobby: Narrow Holding but Potentially
On this point, I think we may have at least some degree of consensus: The
issue is not corporate v. noncorporate, or for-profit v. nonprofit; it is,
instead -- and has been ever since Prince, a case involving individuals
acting in the commercial sector for religious, nonprofit reasons -- whether
Eugene: if you were at counsel table in the Supreme Court, waiting to
argue a case, and were uncomfortable (for religious reasons) standing in
respectful silence while Pamela Talkin intoned God save the United States
and this Honorable Court, would you dare stay seated, even though there's
no
...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Monday, July 07, 2014 2:05 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Town of Greece and coercion
That's a different point, I think. I assume you'd agree that you'd remain
standing not only because you think it's the right
The Times reports that the administration is getting heavy pressure from
both sides on whether to craft a new religious exemption to the forthcoming
E.O., which would prohibit all federal contractors from discriminating on
the basis of sexual orientation:
not trying
to support crazy claims of religious privilege,’ he said.”
[end of excerpt]
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 09, 2014 8:46 AM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 09, 2014 8:46 AM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* What's at stake in the debate over the forthcoming LGBT
nondiscrimination E.O.?
The Times reports that the administration is getting
If I might be so presumptuous as to shift the question somewhat:
*Of course* Justices' religion, and their experiences and learnings as
adherents of particular religions, affects their perspectives when they
decide cases, especially (but not limited to) cases involving religion
(e.g., Town of
written, it is not really a court at all.
Best,
Eric
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 11, 2014, at 1:31 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
If I might be so presumptuous as to shift the question somewhat:
*Of course* Justices' religion, and their experiences
For those of you who have nothing better to do this weekend, allow me to
offer a rather dry and detailed effort to explain what the issues will be
in the cases going forward:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/07/unpacking-forthcoming-rfra-challenges.html
administrator are set forth in 26
CFR 54.9815-2713A, 29 CFR 2510.3-16, and 29 CFR 2590.715-2713A
This certification is an instrument under which the plan is operated.
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:48 AM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
For those of you who have
Reports are that there will not be a new exemption:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/us/politics/obama-to-extend-protections-for-gay-workers-with-no-religious-exemption.html?hpaction=clickpgtype=Homepageversion=HpSumSmallMediamodule=first-column-regionregion=top-newsWT.nav=top-news_r=0
On Mon,
A question for Doug and others who supported a broader exemption in the
executive order:
I'm trying to understand what's at stake as a practical matter. Presumably
few applicants for government contracts believe it is ok to discriminate
against LGBT employees. Therefore I assume the principal
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
A question for Doug and others who supported a broader exemption in the
executive order:
I'm trying to understand what's at stake as a practical matter.
Presumably few applicants for government contracts believe
I don't think that's right, Eugene. Or, more to the point, you are correct
that the sec. 204 exemption is not extended to sexual orientation
discrimination proscribed in sec. 202 -- but that that's true, as well, for
all other forms of forbidden discrimination, and retaliation, that are
proscribed
Johnson Lyons LLP is now Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP.*
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 1:11 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Question
to treat sexual orientation discrimination as akin to race
discrimination, or as akin to religious discrimination.
Eugene
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:11
** | www.LRRLaw.com
http://www.lrrlaw.com/*
*image002.jpg*
*Rothgerber Johnson Lyons LLP is now Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP.*
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [
mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 23
that the legislators could not have specifically
imagined.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
no and no
That was an easy test!
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Scarberry, Mark
mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu wrote:
Here's a test case
-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 2:59 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Question about the President's executive order on sexual
orientation discrimination
?? It's not either race discrimination or religious
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:10 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Question about the President's executive order on sexual
orientation
I mentioned that in one of my posts, David. As you know, the EEOC has
recently come to embrace the view that LGBT discrimination is sex
discrimination under Title VII -- which, if accepted, would make ENDA and
the E.O. quite beside the point. See cases cited here:
FWIW, a post on these questions:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/07/why-law-does-not-and-should-not-allow.html
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
The section 702 exemption, and the virtually identical section 204 of the
EO, allows employers
I blogged about it here:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/07/confirmation-that-supreme-courts.html
DOJ has now told the 10th Circuit that the new reg will be issued no later
than a week from today (Aug. 22).
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Conkle, Daniel O. con...@indiana.edu
wrote:
This
] on behalf of Marty Lederman [
lederman.ma...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Friday, August 15, 2014 11:05 AM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Administration to ‘Augment’ ACA Contraceptive Rules
I blogged about it here:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/07/confirmation
An updated version of my post (
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-augmented-contraception-coverage.html
):
*The Augmented Contraception Coverage Regulations (and an NPRM on extension
of the accommodation to some for-profit employers)*
Marty Lederman
As promised
http://balkin.blogspot.com
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 *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Friday, August 22, 2014 5:45 PM
*To:* Law
...@lists.ucla.edu
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 4:32 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Administration to ‘Augment’ ACA Contraceptive Rules
You've got those basically correct, Doug:
In order to prevail
My take on it:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/08/disturbing-reversal-of-hate-crime.html
I'm curious whether others are as troubled by this decision as I am -- and
whether I've overlooked any other justification for the majority's
reasoning.
___
To
Not sure if this went through earlier this morning; a couple of subscribers
told me they did not get it:
My take on the case:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/08/disturbing-reversal-of-hate-crime.html
I'm curious whether others are as troubled by this decision as I am --
and whether I've
School of Law
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071
U.S.A.
From: Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Date: Thursday, August 28, 2014 at 3:53 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject
Recall Scalia's basic account in Smith, to wit: We've been making noises
since 1964 about compelling interests and narrow tailoring, but come on
. . . of course we didn't really mean it: We've been hypocrites, using the
language of strict scrutiny but in fact applying nothing of the sort. And
I have heard that among the most prominent contractors the new Order might
affect are Catholic Charities and Catholic Relief Services. Does anyone
know offhand what the policies of those two organizations are w/r/t
employees' sexual orientation and payment of benefits to same-sex spouses
-- or of
Who opposes clergy political activity?
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 24, 2014, at 6:21 PM, Scarberry, Mark
mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu wrote:
It seems that Bishop John Hughes in New York endorsed political candidates.
Apparently he opposed public funding of schools that taught
Once again: What question are we asking?
I thought we were discussing what exemptions, if any, a legislature should
enact (or, more to the point, repeal). And surely it'd be ridiculous for a
legislature to craft an exemption limited to minors who promise they'll
never have sex.
Will, on the
Congrats to Doug!
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-6827_5h26.pdf
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/vaccine-critics-turn-defensive-over-measles.html?hpaction=clickpgtype=Homepagemodule=first-column-regionregion=top-newsWT.nav=top-news
Anyone know whether, in light of increasing public health issues such as
this, have there been any recent proposals in state
I'm a bit confused as to which question Perry and Sandy (and Doug?) are
discussing. To break it down a bit for clarification:
1. It would be perfectly constitutional for the state to require everyone
to be vaccinated; a fortiori, vaccination can be made a condition of
attending school. That's
I am hardly one to hold a brief for Judge Moore, who is obviously
ill-motivated in this (as in may other instances). But, as fr as I know,
he has not (yet) suggested anything like interposition.
Interposition consisted of one or both of two things: (i) state officials
failing to conform their
of on Yahoo)
or it could be that the gay right supporters included this in the proposals
they would challenge.
Brad
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Friday, February 13, 2015 3:22 PM
*To:* Law Religion
What does it say that seven out of 95 legislators voted against? That
this is not a serious question.
BTW, the story does not say that supporters of gay rights said they'll
challenge the law in the courts if it is passed, indicating that they
believe pastors can be forced to perform same sex
Lobby Stores, Inc.,
573 U. S. ___ (2014).
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
It somehow escaped my attention that, four months ago, Notre Dame
voluntarily decided to offer spousal benefits to same-sex spouses of its
employees. (Gerald Bradley, John
-profit.
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 *Marty
the split decision in World Vision is probably more relevant now than
Townley, FWIW:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/01/25/08-35532.pdf
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Christopher Lund l...@wayne.edu wrote:
Does anyone have any cases addressing the applicability of the
Cf. Justice Thomas's dissent from denial of cert. in *Swanner*, 513 US 979
(1994), questioning whether the state and a locality could have a
compelling interest in eradicating discrimination in housing on the basis
of marital status, in light of the numerous other contexts in which the
state
have turned in
just the past five years.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Marty Lederman 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
Based on that account, the fix would not cover, e.g., employment
discrimination, even by for-profit employers. And even in the context of
customers, it might allow employers to assert the right to discriminate not
on the basis of an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity,
but instead
that should be Gerard (not Gerald) Bradley, of course -- sorry
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
It somehow escaped my attention that, four months ago, Notre Dame
voluntarily decided to offer spousal benefits to same-sex spouses of its
employees
It somehow escaped my attention that, four months ago, Notre Dame
voluntarily decided to offer spousal benefits to same-sex spouses of its
employees. (Gerald Bradley, John Finnis and Daniel Philpott excoriate the
University here: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/02/14522/.)
Is anyone
.
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
It somehow escaped my attention that, four months ago, Notre Dame
voluntarily decided to offer spousal benefits to same-sex spouses of its
employees. (Gerald Bradley, John Finnis and Daniel Philpott excoriate
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
are now
considering pulling their business from the state.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Ryan T. Anderson
ryantimothyander...@gmail.com wrote:
Sexual orientation is not the same as race.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
or, imagine if Justice
719.386.3070*
*eknif...@lrrlaw.com eknif...@lrrlaw.com** | www.LRRLaw.com
http://www.lrrlaw.com/*
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Friday, March 27, 2015 11:42 AM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law
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
wrote:
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/statement-indiana
to achieve that critical goal.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
Before the ruling -- but not before the lower court decisions and the slew
of briefs --including by many Catholic groups that were insistent upon
reading RFRA narrowly back in 1993
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/us/politics/indiana-law-denounced-as-invitation-to-discriminate-against-gays.html
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/statement-indiana-religious-freedom-bill
Sandy: the florist who refuses to sell a bouquet for use at a same-sex
marriage, who is necessarily condoning the presumptively sinful conduct?
I assume you meant to say that the florist would necessarily condone the
presumptively sinful conduct if she *did* sell the bouquet to the same-sex
I agree with Doug that this academic discussion is and will be overtaken by
much more powerful political and social forces. Even so, I'm curious about
how he and other would draw the lines he's proposing. What are those few
cases where religious exemptions make sense? Only cases that somehow
I seriously doubt that any school has, or will have, a rule that prohibits
same-sex dating, as such, akin to one of the Bob Jones prohibitions (set
out below). I'd also be surprised if any schools will refuse to admit, or
will expel, students who are gay, or who are partners in a SSM (again,
akin
, wouldn’t such
universities be pretty unlikely to offer married student housing to
same-sex couples?
Eugene
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:39 AM
*To:* Law
...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:39 AM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Religious organizations, tax-exempt status and same-sex
marriage
The more I think about the details of this, the more I'm inclined to agree
A school that does not admit LGBT students, Alan? Are there even such
schools *now*? In what year does your hypo occur?
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Alan E Brownstein aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu
wrote:
None of us can predict the future very well. The world today is very
different than I
at a religiously conservative college -- whether sex is permitted
between members of a different sex married couple but not members of a same
sex married couple (because I assume such schools prohibit intercourse of
any kind by unmarried students on campus.)
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Marty
-- but
it's a hypo.) Or let's assume a privately funded religious pre-school
refuses to accept children of a same-sex married couple.
--
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Marty Lederman
lederman.ma
Alan: Thank you for that very thoughtful and candid reply.
I apologize if my wording in response to Eugene's post was infelicitous, or
insensitive, in any way. I was trying to be very careful *not* to suggest
that all religious objectors would change their minds. I agree with you
that some
Please allow me to use Michael's final question as a way of turning this
thread back to its original topic--namely, whether a decision for the
petitioners in *Obergefell* would have any *legal *impact on religious
colleges and universities that adhere to the view that same-sex marriage is
immoral.
Jones analog 20 years from now; but their votes were preordained.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
I should have added that I agree wholeheartedly with Chip that the odds of
the IRS doing such a thing in the next decade or two are remote -- my point
, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
FWIW, the CLS policy in *CLS v. Martinez* was not neutral on its face:
It required members to conduct their lives in accord with prescribed
principles, among which was that sexual activity should not occur
outside of marriage *between a man
-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2015 8:15 AM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Religious organizations, tax-exempt status and same-sex
marriage
Please allow me to use Michael's final question as a way of turning
Thanks for that clarification, Doug. Could you please offer greater detail
about why you think the courts should *reject *the RFRA objections to the
nonprofit compromise? On substantial burden grounds? Compelling
interest/no less restrictive alternative?
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Doug
I predict that there will be few such cases, because both the market and
changing religious views will moot them out. (As to the former, note the
lead item in Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update two weeks ago: Colin
Jost: The Governor of Indiana has signed a new law allowing businesses to
turn
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/us/arkansas-indiana-religious-freedom-hutchinson-pence.html
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 9:39 PM, Friedman, Howard M.
howard.fried...@utoledo.edu wrote:
The Arkansas legislature today passed a state RFRA. While national media
is reporting that the bill is
:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [
mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 02, 2015 10:06 AM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: 8th Cir. upholds exclusion of religious schools from
available here:
http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/gender-sexuality/prpcp_marriage_exemptions_memo_nov_5.pdf
On Jun 11, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
The North Carolina legislature just passed this legislation over
-sex couple would not be turned away; the marriage desk would simply be
manned by someone who has not opted out of those duties, for same-sex- and
opposite-sex couples alike. Have I misunderstood the statute?
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
Unless I
The North Carolina legislature just passed this legislation over the
(Republican) governor's veto:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Applications/BillLookUp/LoadBillDocument.aspx?SessionCode=2015DocNum=5074SeqNum=0
As I read it, a magistrate may recuse from performing *all *marriages
(which is
a hard time taking O'Connor's Mitchell
opinion seriously after Zelman -- even though O'Connor's opinion was
controlling and they are not supposed to anticipate overrulings.
On Sun, 31 May 2015 21:08:20 -0400
Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote:
The court of appeals writes:
We also
Under *Mitchell v. Helms*, would it even be constitutionally *permissible* for
the state to give direct grant funding to the church? Recall that SOC, in
her governing opinion, rested quite heavily on the distinction between
monetary and nonmonetary aid when it comes to direct aid (as opposed to
language of *Locke v. Davey *(wrong as I think the majority
opinion is there).
Eugene
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman
*Sent:* Sunday, May 31, 2015 6:08 PM
*To:* Law Religion issues
(it didn't do so in its brief), and
that a court of appeals would at least address the question.
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
Under *Mitchell v. Helms*, would it even be constitutionally *permissible* for
the state to give direct grant funding
distribution
instead of vouchers does not matter, and so O'Connor's opinion is hard to
take seriously. And I'm guessing that many judges don't pay it much heed
after Zelman.
On Sun, 31 May 2015 21:33:37 -0400
Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote:
Zelman is inapposite. It involved a voucher
, 31 May 2015 23:44:27 -0400
From: Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
To: Douglas Laycock dlayc...@virginia.edu
Cc: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: 8th Cir. upholds exclusion of religious schools from
playground safety
I agree that the pass-through distinction does not make a great deal of
sense in cases where the decision about whether a church gets the money *is
made by private parties* with genuine and independent choice about where to
spend the dollars. The distinction I've been focusing upon, by contrast,
The Court today in effect denied that there is a separate religious
accommodation provision of title VII that requires preferences for religion
in some cases. Instead, because the 1972 Congress awkwardly established
the accommodation requirement in the *definition* of religion, the Court
tried to
.
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 *Marty Lederman
*Sent
that it can't be uttered in a Supreme Court opinion, even by Justices who
are willing to say plenty of other outrageous things.
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
I agree with Doug that the majority gave short shrift to the state’s
reasons because
to refer back to his original post for
the content of it.
Mark
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 3, 2015, at 8:56 AM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
Some of you might find this of interest. Reactions and critiques
encouraged
Some of you might find this of interest. Reactions and critiques
encouraged, as always.
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-remarkable-disappearance-of-state.html
*The Remarkable Disappearance of State Justifications in Obergefell*
Marty Lederman
Over at the *Slate* Breakfast Table, I have
...@lists.ucla.edu [
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Marty Lederman [
lederman.ma...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Friday, July 03, 2015 11:32 AM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Cc:* conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu
*Subject:* Re: The Remarkable Disappearance of State Justifications
Pepperdine University School of Law
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 3, 2015, at 8:56 AM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
Some of you might find this of interest. Reactions and critiques
encouraged, as always.
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-remarkable-disappearance
In his second point, Earl is re-arguing some of the rationales that states
have, in fact, invoked in the marriage cases over the past dozen or more
years. I don't want to rehash the merits of those arguments, having spent
countless hours in and out of government for many years contending with
401 - 500 of 652 matches
Mail list logo
