Search

I. INTRODUCTION 545 II. FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGES TO STATE PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS LAWS 546 A. ROBERTS V. UNITED STATES JAYCEES 547 B. HURLEY V. IRISH-AMERICAN GAY, LESBIAN, & BISEXUAL GROUP OF [...]

I. INTRODUCTION 941 II. DEVELOPMENTS IN RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS 942 III. THE MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION 944 A. HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL V. 945 EEOC B. EEOC V. R.G. & G.R. [...]

I. INTRODUCTION 271 II. PRESCRIPTION BIRTH CONTROL AND EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION: A 272 HISTORY A. TYPES OF CONTRACEPTION DEFINED 272 B. THE RIGHT TO ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTION 276 C. THE PATIENT [...]

INTRODUCTION 540 I. BACKGROUND: WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL ABOUT RELIGION? 544 A. Free Exercise Jurisprudence: A Brief Look 547 B. Smith versus The Religious Freedom Restoration Act: The Current Free [...]

I. INTRODUCTION 265 II. PRESCRIPTION BIRTH CONTROL AND EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION: A HISTORY 266 A. TYPES OF CONTRACEPTION DEFINED 266 B. THE RIGHT TO ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTION 270 C THE PATIENT [...]

I. Introduction. 733 II. Developments in Religious Exemptions. 734 III. The Ministerial Exception 736 A. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC 736 B. EEOC V. R.G. & G.R. [...]

Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Culture War Politics and the Rise of Conscience Clauses A. Religious Freedom Restoration Act B. Culture Wars Today III. ACA Protections and Failures: Patients [...], Recent cases and political movements have severely limited reproductive healthcare access for many across the United States. Religious freedom has been the purported reason for these intrusions into bodily autonomy. In this article, I show how the range of ways in which religious exemptions are growing and impinging on the legal rights of those seeking reproductive healthcare, and especially abortion care. I argue that while cases like Hobby Lobby undermine the original intent of religious freedom laws, much of the political rhetoric remains the same. The polarization between religion and sex and gender-related rights--another iteration of culture war politics--causes the growth in these exemptions. I recommend several policy reforms that can align religious freedom laws to their original intent and warn legal activists against proactive litigation in the era of Trump-appointed judges. Importantly, I present a novel survey of state-level religious freedom statutes and offer a roadmap for legislators to protect access to reproductive healthcare in their states.

Abstract The family plays a starring role in American law. Families, the law tells us, are special. They merit many state and federal benefits, including tax deductions, testimonial privileges, untaxed [...]

Abstract: Recent disputes about the "contraception mandate" under the Affordable Care Act and about the provision of goods and services for same-sex weddings have drawn attention to the law of [...]

E. Devaluation of Care Work The majority also failed to recognize how many women at Wal-Mart fell victim to caregiver discrimination, also known as family responsibility discrimination. (206) This stereotype [...]

Abstract We live in an era of growing economic inequality. Luminaries ranging from the President to the Pope to economist Thomas Piketty in his bestselling book Capital in the Twenty-First [...]

B. The Modern Shift in Corporate Rights Doctrine The Court's recent decisions in Citizens United and Hobby Lobby have not only expanded corporate rights, they have also given a quasi-constitutional [...]

The Supreme Court has recently decided some of the most important and controversial cases involving the federal rights of corporations in over two hundred years of jurisprudence. In rulings ranging [...]

The Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC invalidated a longstanding restriction on corporate and union campaign spending in federal elections, freeing entities with diverse political goals to [...]

"If only there were some way to prove that corporations were not people." --Jon Stewart (1) INTRODUCTION I. THE HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF CORPORATE PERSONHOOD II. CONTEMPORARY CORPORATE PERSONHOOD CASE LAW [...]

Abstract Australian and United States courts have recently been faced with the question whether corporations may hold the right to freedom of religion. In Christian Youth Camps Ltd v Cobaw [...]

I. INTRODUCTION II. THE HOBBY LOBBY CASE A. BACKGROUND B. THE MAJORITY OPINION C. JUSTICE KENNEDY'S CONCURRING OPINION D. THE DISSENTING OPINIONS E. UNANSWERED QUESTIONS III. WHAT DID CONGRESS REALLY [...]

IV. THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATIONS SUPPORTING RELIGIOUS RIGHTS Over the years, courts and commentators have developed a wide range of theories supporting the protection of religious rights. (270) Unfortunately, the indiscriminate and [...]

ABSTRACT The United States has a long and complicated history concerning religious rights, and the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. has done little [...]

NOTE CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I. THE EXPANSION OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION AT THE FEDERAL AND STATE LEVEL A. Origins of the Conscience Clause B. The Expansion of Federal Laws and the Ethical [...], Hobby Lobby represents a high-water mark in a decades-long movement to facilitate conscientious objection at both the federal and state levels. In addition, the number of conscientious objectors has grown because hospital consolidation has increased the dominance of the Ethical and Religious Directives, which limits the care provided by Catholic hospitals. But a little noticed provision of the ACA--Section 1557 --expresses new congressional commitment to equality in access to care. Section 1557 incorporates into federal healthcare law a robust definition of sex discrimination that may limit conscientious objectors' ability to deny patients necessary reproductive health services as well as information about their health status. The law's nondiscrimination provision requires a more equitable balance between the religious liberty of medical providers and patients' rights to care and information.

B. Preservation Through Transformation We now examine how complicity-based conscience claims can serve the law reform goals of cross-denominational movements. As we have seen, many advocates of complicity-based conscience claims [...]

FEATURE CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I. BURDENS OF ACCOMMODATION UNDER HOBBY LOBBY A. Differentiating Claims with Attention to Accommodation's Impact B. Hobby Lobby and the Question of Third-Party Harm II. ANOTHER RELIGIOUS [...], Persons of faith are now seeking religious exemptions from laws concerning sex, reproduction, and marriage on the ground that the law makes the objector complicit in the assertedly sinful conduct of others. We term claims of this kind, which were at issue in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, complicity-based conscience claims. Complicity-based conscience claims differ in form and in social logic from the claims featured in the free exercise cases that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) invokes. The distinctive features of complicity-based conscience claims matter, not because they make the claim for religious exemption any less authentic or sincere, but rather because accommodating claims of this kind has the potential to inflict material and dignitary harms on other citizens. Complicity claims focus on the conduct of others outside the faith community. Their accommodation therefore has potential to harm those whom the claimants view as sinning. Today complicity claims are asserted by growing numbers of Americans about contentious "culture war" issues. This dynamic amplifies the effects of accommodation. Faith claims that concern questions in democratic contest will escalate in number, and accommodation of the claims will be fraught with significance, not only for the claimants, but also for those whose conduct the claimants condemn. Some urge accommodation in the hopes of peaceful settlement, yet, as we show, complicity claims can provide an avenue to extend, rather than settle, conflict. We highlight the distinctive form and social logic of complicity-based conscience claims so that those debating accommodation do so with the impact on third parties fully in view. We show how concern about the third-party impact of accommodation structured the Court's decision in Hobby Lobby and demonstrate how this concern is an integral part of RFRA's compelling interest and narrow tailoring inquiries. At issue is not only whether but how complicity claims are accommodated.

INTRODUCTION Religion is the first freedom protected by the Bill of Rights, which it divides into two guarantees: neither the federal nor state governments may "establish[]" a religion (the "Establishment [...], Despite the word 'free' in the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, the free exercise of religion is not always free: as illustrated in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the plaintiffs' psychic cost of violating their religious beliefs by providing contraceptive coverage to their employees was pitted against the costs to their employees and society of not having it. Using Hobby Lobby as a springboard, this Article first illuminates an underexplored area of the Free Exercise Clause: there are actually two types of religious exercise claims--individuals versus the government and individuals against not just the government, but also against the fundamental rights of other individuals. Under current jurisprudence, free exercise claims--be they individuals versus the government or individuals versus other individuals--win if the government 'substantially burdens' religious practice unless the government's interest is 'compelling' and is pursued by the 'least restrictive means.' These terms, though key to the current free exercise analysis, are relatively standardless: case law does not define them, but instead uses the common law's argument by analogy to glean their boundaries. Instead, this Article proposes that we should use the Coase Theorem as an objective test for both types of free exercise challenges: the individuals versus the government and individuals versus other individuals. For the first category, Coasian analysis helps us decide if the government's means are in fact the least restrictive: for hard free exercise cases, we can avoid the intellectual thicket of defining 'compelling government interest' and 'substantial religious burden.' And, Coasian bargains can resolve free exercise disputes that pit individuals' religious practice against the rights of other individuals: the law should favor outcomes that best approximate a Coasian bargain, and, for those cases that lack a clear Coasian bargain, they should be resolved in favor of the party who is not the cheapest cost avoider. Because this new Coasian test anchors free exercise disputes to a clear objective standard, its outcomes will be more correct and principled than the existing jurisprudence.

III. WHY BALANCING, AND NOT AUTONOMY, IS APPROPRIATE IN THE FOR-PROFIT CONTEXT Hobby Lobby should be read narrowly as a balancing case, rather than as an autonomy case for several [...]

ABSTRACT Churches are protected under the autonomy doctrine, which is rooted in the Religion Clauses, to ensure that they are free to define their institutional identity and mission. In more [...]

Brigitte Amiri: Thank you so much for having me. I didn't realize that getting up early any day was an accomplishment, but thank you so much for coming and thanks [...]

Introduction I. Selective Incorporation of Corporate Constitutional Rights A. To Whom Do Constitutional Rights Attach? B. Theories of Corporate Personhood II. A Taxonomy of Corporate Constitutional Rights A. The Contract [...]

III. INCORPORATION OF SUBSTANTIVE CORPORATE RIGHTS When can an organization litigate an injury to the entity? The question should be viewed as a threshold question of Article III standing. The [...]

ABSTRACT In a zero-sum game, one person's gain is another person's loss. Some claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act present such zero-sum circumstances in that easing the claimant's religious [...]