Source: http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2014/09/hobby-lobby-post-mortem-part-11-how.html?showComment=1411658825028
Timestamp: 2020-02-28 03:27:09
Document Index: 229163159

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 11', '§147', '§54', '§147', '§54', '§147', '§54', 'sui generis']

Dorf on Law: Hobby Lobby Post-Mortem Part 11: How RFRA Connects Social Conservatism to Libertarianism
I appreciate the complex discussion but this stood out:
anti-abortion in the particulars
It isn't arguably that -- contraceptives can cut down on abortions. Some who are fairly strongly against abortion particularly feel it is important partially for this reason.
The whole thing is somewhat depressing to me.
Everyone supports "religious liberty" in the abstract but the extent and constraint on that liberty interest that is disputed. I just wish the liberals who rushed through RFRA would have crafted a much narrower statute aimed specifically at minority religions and carve outs for third parties as well as civil rights, rather than the unprecedented attempt to reverse a constitutional opinion by imposing an untested equal protection procedural rule on the Court.
RFRA was a very popular bipartisan piece of legislation though in hindsight many liberals have had second thoughts.
In hindsight, also the judicial activism (not saying this is wrong by definition here) of Oregon v. Smith was unfortunate. O'Connor pointed out a narrow way to uphold the law.
And, given the narrow question (wasn't a criminal prosecution, drug use by drug counselors is a special case, state court ruling involved), there was little need to rule so broadly.
Once a legislative rule was put in place, one arguably broader than the pre-existing law (though the word "restoration" is pretty misleading then), it made things worse. To give some credit to the legislators, many think they were basically returning things to the status quo ante, not bringing forth a totally unprecedented new rule.
But, they still have the responsibility here though Hobby Lobby made things worse.
It is puzzling that this analysis (and apparently the debate) proceeded wothout so much as mention of the solution provided b Justice Alito's Majority Opinion:
"HHS itself has demonstrated that it has at its disposal an approach that is less restrictive than requiring employers to fund contraceptive methods that violate their religious beliefs. As we explained above, HHS has already established an accommodation for nonprofit organizations with religious objections. See supra, at 9–10, and nn. 8–9. Under that accommodation, the organization can self-certify that it opposes providing coverage for particular contraceptive services. See 45 CFR §§147.131(b)(4), (c)(1); 26 CFR §§54.9815–2713A(a)(4), (b). If the organization makes such a certification, the organization’s insurance issuer or third-party administrator must “[e]xpressly exclude contraceptive coverage from the group health insurance coverage provided in connection with the group health plan” and “[p]rovide separate payments for any contraceptive services required to be covered” without imposing “any cost-sharing requirements . . . on the eligible organization, the group health plan, or plan participants or beneficiaries.” 45 CFR §147.131(c)(2); 26 CFR §54.9815–2713A(c)(2). 38
We do not decide today whether an approach of this type complies with RFRA for purposes of all religious claims. 39 At a minimum, however, it does not impinge on the plaintiffs’ religious belief that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion, and it serves HHS’s stated interests equally well. 40
The principal dissent identifies no reason why this accommodation would fail to protect the asserted needs of women as effectively as the contraceptive mandate, and there is none. 41 Under the accommodation, the plaintiffs’ female employees would continue to receive contraceptive coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contraceptives, and they would continue to “face minimal logistical and administrative obstacles,” post, at 28 (internal quotation marks omitted), because their employers’ insurers would be responsible for providing information and coverage, see, e.g., 45 CFR §§147.131(c)–(d); cf. 26 CFR §§54.9815–2713A(b), (d). "
On294e may debate whether Alito's solution has practical problems, but to ignore it altogether seems, well, puzzling.
One may debate whether Alito's solution has practical problems, but to ignore it altogether seems, well, puzzling.
darrowet: Puzzle no more. This post does not recount everything that occurred. During my introductory discussion, I explained how Justice Alito's majority opinion assumed that it would be possible to accommodate the religious claims w/o burdening the employees. Mr. Malcolm argued that even if that were not possible, he would still favor accommodating the religious claim. Here I have described the pushback to that claim.
Was the approach Congress took in attempting to "overturn" Smith by prescribing a mandatory specific rule/formula (heightened scrutiny) for the Court to apply when RFRA is invoked considered novel or sui generis at the time RFRA was drafted? I can't think of another statute that attempted to micromanage how the court analyzed constitutional claims. Obviously the Court resented such meddling as evidenced by its striking down RFRA when applied to the States by some creative interpretation but left it intact against the federal government. Any idea as to why the court didn't attempt to invalidate RFRA completely under some sort of separation of powers theory rather than the convoluted 14th amendment incorporation theory that just applied to the states?
the whole history of the RFRA is fraught with overreaching by the Court and Congress. The Oregon vs Smith decision by Scalia was wrong from inception. The facts were clear that Oregon's legislature had targeted the Indian tribe in passing the law and the Court failed to protect the religious rights of the minority. The decision was widely criticized by both the Public and the Legal establishment. In response, Congress passed the RFRA which is vague and over broad . In response the Ct in Flores, overreached and held that Congress did not have the authority under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to apply against the States. The Hobby Lobby decision is wrong in many respects. For- profit businesses do not have 1st amendment religious rights. I defy an originalist to find it there. It is clear that the ACA , a subsequent law to RFRA, did not give Hobby Lobby free exercise rights under the Statute since there is no evidence Congress intended to provide it under the Statute. Bottom line, is that the Ct should have ruled that Hobby Lobby had no standing under RFRA and dismissed the case. Alternatively, it should have ruled that forcing a corporation not make a payment is NOT a substantial burden on religious freedom.
sorry, last sentence should say… forcing a corporation to pay a small dollar amount per employee is not a substantial burden on religious freedom.
Both in his affirmative presentaiton and partly in response to an audience member's question, Mr. Malcolm drew a distinction between the religious freedom of owners of businesses like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga WoodCheap FIFA 15 Coins
"The facts were clear that Oregon's legislature had targeted the Indian tribe in passing the law and the Court failed to protect the religious rights of the minority."
Oregon barred various things that interfered with a religious group in some fashion. It is unclear how it "targeted" Indian tribes specifically when it -- along with let's say marijuana which some religious groups say is also needed for a sacrament -- banned peyote, which has potential to be quite dangerous. The Court argued that the law was an evenhanded one and that it was not the sort of thing the Free Exercise Clause guarded against. A few years later, it struck down a law that targeted a specific unpopular minority faith. The dissent in Oregon v. Smith did argue the majority was wrong, but still, not sure if you show your work.
"In response, Congress passed the RFRA which is vague and over broad . In response the Ct in Flores, overreached and held that Congress did not have the authority under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to apply against the States."
It seems to me it being "vague and overboard" helps the cause to show how it is not an "appropriate" way for Congress to protect religious liberty under Sec. 5.
"The Hobby Lobby decision is wrong in many respects. For- profit businesses do not have 1st amendment religious rights. I defy an originalist to find it there."
I'm not sure it is necessary to argue that this case rests on 1A religious rights turning on making a profit or not. The "public accomodation" nature of the business with employees not members of the religion etc. seems more important than if it makes $1 in profit or something.
"Alternatively, it should have ruled that forcing a corporation not make a payment is NOT a substantial burden on religious freedom."
I think this a possible way or a compelling state interest can be shown or concern about harm to third parties. As to Alito's suggestion, the dissent actually does address it (see, pp 29-31 of dissent) & ultimately it will be burdensome to the women (even if it satisfies the employer, which doesn't seem to be the case in certain lawsuits). As Ginsburg notes, the situation is different in the non-profit world, especially when the covered people are much more likely to be of the same faith of the employer. Using the same rule for both non-profit and profit is problematic for various reasons, as she suggests.
壹個人外送茶坊 如果下定決心做成某件事指油壓全套，那麽他就會憑借意識的驅動和潛意識的力量，一夜情留言板跨域前進道路上的重重障礙，成功也就有了魚訊論壇保障。有人用科學術語比喻：魚訊人體的神經子系統特別是大腦，就相當於電腦的“援交一夜情硬件”，意識就是援交這部無比精密的電腦的高雄援交“操作者”，潛意識就等於電腦的“軟件”.通過這些生動的比喻一夜情援交，妳能夠明白意識外約按摩和潛意識的關系和奧秘。壹個人免費魚訊想著成功，就有外約指油壓可能成功；想著失敗，就會失敗。壹個人期望的多，傳播小姐獲得的也多,期望的少，獲得的也少。成功是產生在魚訊那些有成功意識的人身上的，失敗則是源於那些不自覺地讓外約自己產生失敗意識的人身上的台北一夜情。自信是成功的前提，外送茶妳擁有自信，就擁有成功的壹半機會。相信自己是外送茶最棒的就壹定會成就魚訊壹定的事業台北援交 。
"高雄市 台中援交一名 傳播妹鐘點情人 在 KTV 包廂內慘遭多名一夜情留言板奧客輪姦，惡狼事後一哄而散，無助的台中外送茶坊茶莊被害人身心 外送茶莊受創、 在包廂外痛哭失聲，店內發生性侵暴力，援 交易 台中店家卻無一人關心，令她心寒； 消息傳出，一夜情網站跑單幫的傳播妹人心惶惶，外送茶坊擔心一夜情援交成為下一個受害者，指油壓外出警方正
指油壓外出援交論壇提供最新茶訊、魚訊..等女兼職買春資訊。外送茶坊想打炮嗎？快上來茶訊-援交論壇，查詢，無論是你想買春或是妳想賣春按摩個人工作室，都可以上來茶訊-援交論壇查詢女兼職喔。台中茶訊這是一個完全免費的自由交易的園地，女兼職魚訊外約服務,指油壓 舒適度百分百簡直爽呆了 ...