Last week, our law journal Engage published an essay by Stanford Law Prof. and former Tenth Circuit Judge Michael W. McConnell on the oral arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby (contraceptive mandate case). Prof. McConnell believes there are four major legal questions for the Court to decide: (1) Could Hobby Lobby avoid a substantial burden on its religious exercise by dropping health insurance and paying fines of $2,000 per employee? (2) Does the government have a compelling interest in protecting the statutory rights of Hobby Lobby’s employees? (3) Would a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby give rise to a slippery slope of exemptions from vaccines, minimum wage laws, anti-discrimination laws, and the like? (4) Has the government satisfied the least restrictive means test? He then explains why he believes the answer to all four questions is no. What do you think? Read the full article here: fed-soc.org/publications/detail/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc
Posted on: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 15:50:40 +0000