Court upholds prison no-pork policy against Establishment Clause challenge

[Ira Lupu]

Is this outcome surprising in any way?  Does anyone on the list believe
that the court got this wrong? (I certainly don't).

If Congress overrode HHS and eliminated pregnancy prevention services from
mandatory coverage by employers under the Affordable Care Act, wouldn't the
analysis be just the same (imposition of a uniform policy to avoid
religious conflict, avoid any need to create controversial exceptions for
religious entities, avoid piece-meal litigation, and ease administration of
the overall scheme), even though the impetus for change derived from a
demand by some for religious accommodation?

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu> wrote:

> River v. Mohr (N.D. Ohio Apr. 5, 2012),
> http://volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/RiversvMohr.pdf .  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Eugene****
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>



-- 
Ira C. Lupu
F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law
George Washington University Law School
2000 H St., NW
Washington, DC 20052
(202)994-7053
My SSRN papers are here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20120411/02cee3b7/attachment.html>