Law Man concerns a white mid-westerner imprisoned for bank robbery who becomes a jailhouse lawyer, including writing a brief for a prisoner that led to a winning Supreme Court case.
The case is only a small part of the book, which is mostly about the author's time in prison as a whole, though the law was an important part of him finding a "purpose" there. Community (including a local girl) plays a key part, both inside and out, in helping him survive and thrive. That and personal ability is key, but he ultimately found God to be the ultimate party involved. I think the book was a bit too long, but was a quick read and obviously an amazing story. Make a good film.
FORTRESS BIBLE CHURCH v. KARAMAN has facts that make it an easier Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) case than some garden variety burden on religious land use. The law itself was a response to Congress being hit by a rolled up newspaper when they tried to overturn Oregon v. Smith. The law limited itself to two subjects and covering the ground here, the provision only applies when federal funding is involved, it affects interstate commerce and a more catchall provision that has potential for wide breadth, leading to some opposition. The facts here seem to suggest the religious institution was targeted because it was a religious institution, thus an equal protection claim had success,while the facts also helped in another way as well.*
Meanwhile, a lower court provided a helpful slap-down of a challenge to the contraceptives mandate, the court thinking the matter so clearly legitimate that it didn't have to address a secular corporation raising 1A rights. A question that is bound to be a matter of dispute in a major case since repeatedly such corporations raise claims, down to a state case that Volokh Conspiracy covered involving an incorporated photography studio found to have the duty to equally serve a same sex ceremony.
The opinion, as seen by the excerpt, covers the usual ground, by now fairly standard. For instance, "the challenged regulations do not demand that plaintiffs alter their behavior in a manner that will directly and inevitably prevent plaintiffs from acting in accordance with their religious beliefs." They don't have the use contraceptives, support them in any way other than health benefits ultimately paid by the employee and the insurance company, which is small change next to the salary as a whole. Why is Medicaid benefits different? Medicaid even allows money to go to abortions in various cases when the religion of the employer might oppose it, especially in those states where things like disability might allow use of the funds. The argument is shoddy and in effect only works by selectively applying it to certain disfavored health care.
The net result hurts people and rather ironically burdens religious freedom in the process by favoring certain faiths over others.
---
* The third provision:
The case is only a small part of the book, which is mostly about the author's time in prison as a whole, though the law was an important part of him finding a "purpose" there. Community (including a local girl) plays a key part, both inside and out, in helping him survive and thrive. That and personal ability is key, but he ultimately found God to be the ultimate party involved. I think the book was a bit too long, but was a quick read and obviously an amazing story. Make a good film.
FORTRESS BIBLE CHURCH v. KARAMAN has facts that make it an easier Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) case than some garden variety burden on religious land use. The law itself was a response to Congress being hit by a rolled up newspaper when they tried to overturn Oregon v. Smith. The law limited itself to two subjects and covering the ground here, the provision only applies when federal funding is involved, it affects interstate commerce and a more catchall provision that has potential for wide breadth, leading to some opposition. The facts here seem to suggest the religious institution was targeted because it was a religious institution, thus an equal protection claim had success,while the facts also helped in another way as well.*
[T]he health care plan will offend plaintiffs’ religious beliefs only if an OIH employee (or covered family member) makes an independent decision to use the plan to cover counseling related to or the purchase of contraceptives. Already, OIH and Frank O’Brien pay salaries to their employees---money the employees may use to purchase contraceptives or to contribute to a religious organization. By comparison, the contribution to a health care plan has no more than a de minimus impact on the plaintiff’s religious beliefs than paying salaries and other benefits to employees.
Meanwhile, a lower court provided a helpful slap-down of a challenge to the contraceptives mandate, the court thinking the matter so clearly legitimate that it didn't have to address a secular corporation raising 1A rights. A question that is bound to be a matter of dispute in a major case since repeatedly such corporations raise claims, down to a state case that Volokh Conspiracy covered involving an incorporated photography studio found to have the duty to equally serve a same sex ceremony.
The opinion, as seen by the excerpt, covers the usual ground, by now fairly standard. For instance, "the challenged regulations do not demand that plaintiffs alter their behavior in a manner that will directly and inevitably prevent plaintiffs from acting in accordance with their religious beliefs." They don't have the use contraceptives, support them in any way other than health benefits ultimately paid by the employee and the insurance company, which is small change next to the salary as a whole. Why is Medicaid benefits different? Medicaid even allows money to go to abortions in various cases when the religion of the employer might oppose it, especially in those states where things like disability might allow use of the funds. The argument is shoddy and in effect only works by selectively applying it to certain disfavored health care.
The net result hurts people and rather ironically burdens religious freedom in the process by favoring certain faiths over others.
---
* The third provision:
"the substantial burden is imposed in the implementation of a land use regulation or system of land use regulations, under which a government makes, or has in place formal or informal procedures or practices that permit the government to make, individualized assessments of the proposed uses for the property involved."The other issue was if a particular proceeding was covered and while (to quote) "the ordinary environmental review considerations are not subject to RLUIPA, the defendants used the process as a vehicle to resolve zoning and land use issues, which constituted the imposition of a land use regulation as defined in RLUIPA."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!