Symposium: Women’s compelling need for contraception – met by insurers, not objecting employers
Marcia D. Greenberger is co-president of the National Women’s Law Center.
Zubik v. Burwell symposium
9 articles
Symposium: Integrity, mission, and the Little Sisters of the Poor
Richard W. Garnett is Paul J. Schierl / Fort Howard Corporation Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School. The current iteration of the religious-freedom challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s preventive-services mandate (not, as is sometimes suggested, to the act itself) is called Zubik v. Burwell.
Symposium: The missing interest in the contraceptive mandate cases — Catholic women
Leslie C. Griffin is William S. Boyd Professor of Law at UNLV Boyd School of Law. The Little Sisters of the Poor, who generously provide care to the elderly poor, have appeared as the most sympathetic of the thirty-six religious nonprofit petitioners in seven consolidated Supreme Court cases challenging the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Symposium: Let’s hope we get a “compelling state interest” analysis this time around
Helen M. Alvaré is Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law. It seems a safe bet that a post-Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Court will have little difficulty concluding that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) contraception coverage mandate “burdens” religious freedom for purposes of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
Symposium: Religious opt-outs or religious vetoes?
Ira C. Lupu is the F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law Emeritus, and Robert W. Tuttle is the David R. and Sherry Kirschner Berz Research Professor of Law and Religion, at George Washington University.
Symposium: Administrative law lessons from King v. Burwell
Erin Morrow Hawley is Associate Professor of Law and the University of Missouri School of Law. She filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Independent Women’s Forum in support of the petitioners in Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell.
Symposium: Adjudicating “substantial” burdens
Frederick Mark Gedicks is Guy Anderson Chair and Professor of Law at Brigham Young University. He has authored numerous articles on religious exemptions and the ACA contraception mandate. This post reflects his personal views and not necessarily those of Brigham Young University.
Symposium: Contraceptive mandate cases – why the Supreme Court will instruct lower federal courts to stop second-guessing religious beliefs
John Bursch co-chairs the Appellate & Supreme Court Practice at Warner Norcross & Judd LLP. John has argued nine U.S. Supreme Court cases since 2011 and was recently inducted as a Fellow of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers.
The legal fate of Obamacare: Round 4
NOTE TO READERS: Next week the blog will publish a multi-part symposium on the seven cases the Supreme Court will hear this Term on the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act: a protest by religious non-profits arising from the law’s birth-control mandate.