Here’s one more brief that the UCLA First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic has filed in the last few weeks; its argument is that the “profane discourse” law is content-based, which would make it unconstitutional. This one is on behalf of the Thomas More Society, in SNAP v. Joyce (8th Cir.) (the link is to the […]
Author Archive | Eugene Volokh
6. Beyond RFRA: What Should We Think of Mutual Duties of Accommodation?
Whew. That was a lot of writing on Hobby Lobby last week, and a lot of reading. I hope it was helpful, interesting, or both. Now, fortunately, I’m finishing up, but I wanted to close with one broader thought, going beyond the purely legal RFRA question. (I should also note that this thought is even […]
5C. RFRA Strict Scrutiny: The Interest in Protecting Newly Created Private Rights
[Please note the UPDATE below.] (For an introduction to this series of posts, see here.) Today, I’m blogging about what I think should be the heart of the Hobby Lobby case: whether denying Hobby Lobby an exemption from the requirement of providing potentially implantation-preventing contraceptives is the “least restrictive means” of serving a particular “compelling […]
5B. RFRA Strict Scrutiny: The Interest in Sex Equality
(For an introduction to this series of posts, see here.) Today, I’m blogging about what I think should be the heart of the Hobby Lobby case: whether denying Hobby Lobby an exemption from the requirement of providing potentially implantation-preventing contraceptives is the “least restrictive means” of serving a particular “compelling governmental interest.” This post focuses […]
Query About Using Editing Exercises in Selecting Clinic Students / Brief-Writing Assistants
For future sessions of my First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, as well as for various impromptu joint student-professor brief-writing projects I might set up, I was toying with the idea of selecting students chiefly by giving them a simple editing exercise. What I had in mind was giving them sample passages (likely Summaries of Arguments […]
5A. RFRA Strict Scrutiny: The Interest in Protecting Health
(For an introduction to this series of posts, see here.) We can now get to what I think should be the heart of the case: whether denying Hobby Lobby an exemption from the requirement of providing potentially implantation-preventing contraceptives is the “least restrictive means” of serving a particular “compelling governmental interest.” I don’t know what […]
Nelson Mandela
From Max Boot (Commentary): [T]he largest part of the explanation for why South Africa is light years ahead of most African nations — why, for all its struggles with high unemployment, crime, corruption, and other woes, it is freer and more prosperous than most of its neighbors — is the character of Nelson Mandela. Had […]
Would New Jersey Bill Criminalize the Speech in Hustler v. Falwell?
I’m sure the legislatures aren’t thinking of the bill this way, but it might well be what this bill — which cleared one New Jersey Senate committee by a 5-0 vote this summer, and which unanimously passed another committee today — would do. The bill provides, in relevant part, 1. a. A person commits the […]
4B. RFRA Strict Scrutiny: The Argument from Secular Exceptions
(For an introduction to this series of posts, see here.) On then to another general argument — the argument that, regardless of the specific interests the government asserts in support of the employer mandate, those interests don’t count because the law has secular exceptions. One version of the argument is that such exceptions make the […]
3A2 [extra]. A Brief Note on the “Substantial Burden” Requirement
I’ve argued below that, if someone believes that it’s religiously wrong for him to be complicit in certain behavior, requiring him to act in such a way is a “substantial burden” on his religious practice under RFRA. This is true even if you and I might define complicity differently, and might view the particular actions […]
4A. RFRA Strict Scrutiny: The Slippery Slope Question
(For an introduction to this series of posts, see here.) So far, I’ve argued that Hobby Lobby likely has a good case as to the claim that the employer mandate substantially burdens religious exercise, because the mandate requires Hobby Lobby to do something — fund potentially implantation-preventing contraceptives — that Hobby Lobby’s owners believe is […]
Good Non-Fiction Audiobooks, Preferably About History?
I’d like to get some good nonfiction audiobooks, preferably about history — any suggestions? I’d be particularly interested in history of science, technology, or medicine, but I’m flexible. Good science audiobooks might work, too. This would be for my 10-year-old and me to listen to in the car; he’s fine with audiobooks aimed at adults, […]
3B. Would Granting an Exemption from the Employer Mandate Violate the Establishment Clause?
(For an introduction to this series of posts, see here.) In the preceding post, I’ve argued that Hobby Lobby might well prevail on the claim that the employer mandate substantially burdens its owners’ religious practice. This means that Hobby Lobby would be presumptively entitled to an exemption under RFRA, though that presumption could be rebutted […]
3A. Does Requiring Employers to Provide Insurance Covering Certain Behavior Substantially Burden Employers’ Religious Practice?
(For an introduction to this series of posts, see here.) * * * 1. Some people have argued that RFRA shouldn’t apply in Hobby Lobby because the employer mandate doesn’t require employers to actually do anything they see as sinful. The employers aren’t required to use the implantation-preventing contraceptives that they see as immoral. They […]
2B. Does RFRA Allow Exemptions from Burdens Imposed on Corporations?
(For an introduction to this series of posts, see here.) Much of the recent debate about Hobby Lobby and similar cases has focused on whether RFRA allows exemptions from burdens imposed on corporations. As before, let me approach this question by considering some hypotheticals that don’t invoke the hot political passions generated by the employer […]