Search Results for ‘hosanna tabor’

Supreme Court roundup

February 14 roundup

  • “From Chevron to Arlington: The Court and the Administrative State at Sea” [Michael Greve]
  • “Tawana Brawley ordered to pay settlement to man she accused of rape” [ABA Journal] False memories of being assaulted by Tigger, and how that can happen [Lowering the Bar; William Saletan, Slate, debunks a Gawker story, 2010]
  • “Portlandia — The Bed and Breakfast Inspector” [Armisen/Brownstein, IFC]
  • Writer at National Review Online sees Obama’s “pro-marriage” talk as logically entailing big new entitlement program, and applauds that [W. Bradford Wilcox]
  • “What’s Next For The Class Action Plaintiffs’ Bar? Getting Deputized By State Attorneys General” [Kevin Ranlett, Mayer Brown]
  • “Christian School’s Lawsuit May Test Supreme Court’s Religious Freedom Ruling in Hosanna-Tabor Case” [Fed Soc Blog]
  • “The Slippery Slope (Insurance Fears = No More Sledding)” [Free-Range Kids]

9-0, 9-0, 9-0

In three significant cases before the Supreme Court this term — Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC on religious liberty, U.S. v. Jones on warrantless GPS search, and Sackett v. EPA on rights to challenge regulatory agency actions — the justices have been unanimous in rejecting the Obama Administration’s position. This Department of Justice, it seems, keeps asserting a vision of virtually unfettered executive-branch power that even its own appointees on the Court find unpersuasive. “If the government loses in the health-care or immigration cases,” writes my Cato Institute colleague Ilya Shapiro, “it won’t be because its lawyers had a bad day in court or because the justices ruled based on their political preferences. It will be because the Obama administration continues to make legal arguments that don’t pass the smell test.” [WSJ]

“Religious employers must cover pill, Feds say”

HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius said giving church-related sponsors of health plans an additional year to comply with the contraceptive mandate “strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.” Really? If religious freedom is in fact at stake, what kind of “balance” is attained if it gets a one-year reprieve but then expires? A balance between current freedom of institutional conscience and future lack of same? [AP] On the Obama administration’s remarkably unfriendly stance toward self-governance by church institutions, see my coverage of this term’s Hosanna-Tabor Supreme Court case. More: Michael Greve has a must-read analysis predicting the directive’s downfall in court, and pointing out the procedural dodginess of this and much other regulation implementing the ACA. And Thom Lambert asks: “What if the Government Ordered the Human Rights Campaign to Cover Conversion Therapy for Gays?”

January 15 roundup

Religious liberty wins 9-0 at SCOTUS in “ministerial exception” case

And I do a little happy dance at Cato at Liberty (earlier)(& Damon Root/Reason, Allahpundit; my background piece in October).

More: Hans Bader points out, regarding the Obama DoJ’s “let them rely on free association” argument, that “free-association defenses, unlike religious-freedom defenses, are generally losers, as the Supreme Court’s Hishon, Jaycees, and New York State Club Association decisions illustrate.” And: “The extreme position taken by the Obama Justice Department in the Hosanna-Tabor case is a reflection of ideologically-based hiring.”

Synagogue youth workers wage-hour suit

“A youth group adviser from California has brought a class-action suit against her employer, the Orthodox Union. …Her complaint states that in addition to her ‘nine-to-five’ duties of teaching classes, meeting with students and co-workers, cooking for holiday meals and running programs, she also had students at her house on Friday nights, Saturdays and Sundays. She had to make herself constantly available to students and their parents by phone and e-mail, and she worked around the clock while chaperoning Shabbatons and trips.” Overtime was not paid for these duties as legally required, her lawyer says. [JTA via Helfand/Prawfs; related on scope of “ministerial exception” in employment law]

Janitors and the ministerial exception

In discussions of the “ministerial exception,” which limits the scope of employment lawsuits against churches and related groups over some jobs important to their mission, the typical example often given of a job not covered by the exception is janitor. Eve Tushnet wonders why that is (scroll to “custodian of souls”; earlier on the pending Supreme Court case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC).

EEOC vs. the ministerial exception

Argued yesterday before the Supreme Court, the case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC pits the quasi-religion of employment discrimination law against organized religion of every other sort. Guess which side the Obama administration comes down on? I explain in a new op-ed at The Daily Caller. More background: Christopher Lund (Wayne State), “In Defense of the Ministerial Exception”, North Carolina Law Review/SSRN. And per Rick Garnett at NRO “Bench Memos,” the Court’s justices in their questioning yesterday did not appear friendly toward the idea of overthrowing the exception (& followup). According to the L.A. Times and other reporting, Justice Kagan described the Justice Department’s position as “amazing.” More: Marcia McCormick, Workplace Prof (linking to transcript of oral argument, PDF)(& welcome Damon Root/Reason “Hit and Run” readers).