Balkinization |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahman sabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts Hobby Lobby Part II -- What’s it all about?
|
Friday, December 13, 2013
Hobby Lobby Part II -- What’s it all about?
Marty Lederman
Are the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cases about employee health insurance plan coverage of
contraception, writ large, or—as the plaintiffs in those two cases would have it—“only”
about coverage of “abortifacients,” or about four discrete forms of birth control? Something less? Something
more?
As I'll try to explain in
this post, the cases do not, in truth, have anything to do with abortion or “abortifacients”
as those terms are generally understood under federal law or in the medical and
scientific communities. Beyond that, however, it is hard to know for certain
exactly which forms of birth control are specifically challenged in these two
cases. Nevertheless, what is clear is that the Supreme Court’s decision in these
cases could implicate legal
requirements imposed upon for-profit employers that reach well beyond any particular birth-control methods—indeed, beyond
contraception itself.
As I noted in my
opening post, the plaintiffs in the two cases before the Court allege that
the “Preventive
Services” Rule, issued by the Departments of Health and Human Services,
Labor and Treasury, “substantially burdens” their exercise of religion for
purposes of RFRA based on the following logic:
In my next post,
I will examine the fundamental predicate of the plaintiffs’ argument—number (i)
above—which is that federal law requires large employers to offer their
employees access to a medical insurance plan, upon threat of serious sanction.
And in future
posts, I’ll discuss whose exercise of
religion is at stake in these cases—the corporations’, the individual
plaintiffs’ as owners of the
companies, or the individual plaintiffs’ as managers
of those companies; whether the plaintiffs have carried their burden of
showing a “substantial burden” on that religious exercise; and, if so, whether the government can justify denials of exemptions under the RFRA test.
In this post,
however, I start with a discussion of the second step in plaintiffs’ argument—their
assertion that the HHS Rule requires an employee health insurance plan to
provide for coverage of “abortifacients.”
1. Let’s
begin with what the challenged HHS Rule
requires. As I’ll discuss in my next post, neither the HHS Rule nor any other federal law requires employers to offer a health-care plan to their employees. What the Rule does, instead, is to specify certain coverage that must be contained in such plans that are offered.
Even prior to
2010, federal law required that group health insurance plans include coverage
for several things, such as minimum hospital stays for mothers and newborns
after birth, 29 U.S.C. § 1185; reconstructive breast surgery if the plan
otherwise covers mastectomies, id. §
1185b; and routine patient costs for items and services furnished in connection
with participation in certain clinical trials, 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-8.
The ACA made a
significant addition to this list: Congress decided that virtually all
Americans should be entitled to a wide array of affordable “preventive health
services.” Many people receive such services through Medicare, or
Medicaid, or by purchasing a plan (often with substantial government subsidies) on a government-run “exchange.” But
many Americans receive their health insurance from a plan offered by their
employers. Accordingly, the ACA requires that such employer plans--like all other plans--include the
specified “preventive health services,” which must be made available without
cost-sharing, that is, without requiring plan participants and beneficiaries to
make copayments or pay deductibles or coinsurance. Id. § 300gg-13. These services include: cholesterol
screening; colorectal cancer screening; diabetes screening for those with high
blood pressure; certain immunizations; and “evidence-informed preventive care
and screenings” for infants, children, and adolescents.
Most importantly
for present purposes, the ACA also requires coverage “with respect to women,
[of] such additional preventive care and screenings . . . as provided for in
comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services
Administration.” Id. §
300gg-13(a)(4). This particular addition was based upon a legislative
record showing that “women have different health needs than men, and these
needs often generate additional costs.” 155 Cong. Rec. 29,070 (2009)
(statement of Sen. Feinstein). As Judge Rovner explained in her
dissenting opinion in a recent
case,
As noted above,
the list of covered preventive care and screenings for women is to be derived
from “comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services
Administration,” or HRSA. On August 1, 2011, HRSA adopted and released those Guidelines, which were
based upon assessments made in a study
by the Institute of Medicine. HRSA determined that plans should include
coverage without cost-sharing for: specified annual well-woman visits;
gestational diabetes screening; HPV DNA testing; testing for sexually
transmitted diseases and HIV screening and counseling; breastfeeding support,
supplies and counseling; domestic violence screening and counseling; and . . . “all Food and Drug Administration approved
contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and
counseling for women with reproductive capacity.”
The FDA has
approved 20
contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures. Under the HHS
Rule, group health plans must provide coverage without cost-sharing for 18 of these 20 methods and procedures. The
required coverage extends to:
(Presumably
because the statute itself refers to preventive care “with respect to women,”
HHS does not require coverage of the other two FDA-approved birth-control
methods: condoms and vasectomies.)
2. Let’s
turn next to what the plaintiffs in
these two cases object to covering in their employees’ health insurance plans.
As I explained
in my initial
post, the heart of the plaintiffs’ claims in these two cases is that the
HHS Rule will require the owners of the two companies to be complicit in (in
Hobby Lobby’s words, to “participate in, provide
access to, pay for, train others to engage in, or otherwise support”) the use
of what they refer to as “abortion-causing drugs and devices,” or “abortifacients.”
Now, as far as
scientific and medical understandings are concerned—and, more to the point, as
far as understandings under federal law are concerned—this is a null set, because none of the covered 18 forms of
FDA-approved birth control involves abortion. Indeed, the HRSA-approved
list could not include drugs that
cause abortions, because plans must include what’s on the HRSA list, and the
Act itself specifically allows plans to exclude abortion services. 42
U.S.C. § 18023(b)(1).
So are these cases
about nothing at all?
No, they are certainly
about something—but only because of the particular religious beliefs of the
plaintiffs, not because they in fact involve “abortifacients.” Both sets
of plaintiffs allege that, in their view, human life begins at the point where
an egg and sperm unite, even before the embryo is implanted in the uterine
wall, and that it is immoral to take steps to “terminate” such human life, even by preventing the embryo’s implantation.
(See, e.g., paragraph 109 of the Hobby
Lobby complaint, and paragraphs 30 and 92 of the Conestoga
Wood complaint.)
In medical and
scientific circles, preventing implantation is not an abortion. Federal
law adopts the same understanding—namely, that an abortifacient works by
destroying an embryo already implanted
in the uterine lining. (Federal law doesn’t define “abortion,” as such;
but a long-established federal regulation defines a “pregnancy” to “encompass[]
the period of time from implantation until delivery.” 45 C.F.R. 46.202(f).
See also 62 Fed. Reg. 8610, 8611 (Feb. 25, 1997) (“Emergency contraceptive
pills are not effective if the woman is pregnant; they act by delaying or
inhibiting ovulation, and/or altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova
(thereby inhibiting fertilization), and/or altering the endometrium (thereby
inhibiting implantation).”)
The plaintiffs,
by contrast, do call such
implantation-prevention an “abortion,” and thus they denominate drugs that
prevent implantation “abortifacients,” even though the legal, medical and
scientific communities do not treat them as such.
In the end,
plaintiffs’ unconventional terminology does not matter for purposes of their RFRA claim: Wholly apart from questions
of nomenclature, plaintiffs appear to sincerely believe it is immoral to
deliberately use a drug or device that prevents implantation of an embryo.
And therefore they are challenging the HHS Rule only as it applies to such
drugs or devices.
OK, so which of
the 18 forms of FDA-approved birth control covered by the HHS Rule prevent
embryo implantation?
Well, that’s
uncertain. As far as I know, none of the 18 methods primarily
operates by preventing implantation. Indeed, my understanding is that it
is not conclusively established that any
of them does.
Hobby Lobby
nevertheless objects to four of these 18 methods because they might prevent implantation: the
copper IUD, the levonorgestrel-releasing IUD with progestin, and two “emergency”
contraceptive drugs, Plan B and ella. In support of this list, Hobby
Lobby cites the FDA’s own website.
That FDA website
states that Plan B and ella work “mainly” by preventing the release of an egg
from the ovary; that the copper IUD “prevents sperm from reaching the egg,
[and] from fertilizing the egg”; and that the progestin-based IUD “may thicken
the mucus of [the] cervix, which makes it harder for sperm to get to the egg.”
Plaintiffs do not object to such contraceptive functions of these birth-control
methods—that is to say, they do not
object to the primary ways in which these methods work. The FDA site also
states, however, that Plan B “may” prevent implantation of an embryo “by
changing the lining of the womb”; that ella “may also work by changing the lining of the womb (uterus) that may
prevent attachment (implantation)”; that the copper IUD “may prevent the egg from attaching (implanting) in the womb
(uterus)”; and that the progestin-based IUD “thins the lining of [the] uterus”
(without mention of preventing implantation).
The FDA’s statements about the possibility of Plan B and
ella preventing implantation are
open to serious question. One amicus
brief, for instance, argues that recent studies have demonstrated that Plan
B “does not cause changes to the endometrium (uterine lining) that would hamper
implantation,” and that although whether ella has an effect sufficient to
prevent implantation of a fertilized egg “is unknown,” there is “no scientific
evidence showing” that it is able to prevent implantation, either.
Even so, the
Hobby Lobby plaintiffs claim that the very risk
of such effect renders it religiously impermissible for them to facilitate use
of those four drugs. In other words, they appear to be arguing, not only
that their religion prohibits the use of any drug or device that has a remote chance of preventing
implantation of the embryo, but also that their religion prohibits the Hobby
Lobby owners/managers from providing (or paying
for) a health-care plan that some employees may use to subsidize purchase of
such drugs, because in some unknown but small percentage of cases the use of
such drugs might result in
implantation-prevention.
As for the
Conestoga Wood complaint, it mentions Plan B and ella in passing, but it does not otherwise explain which of the FDA-approved birth control methods the
Conestoga Wood owners consider to be objectionable “abortifacients”; it simply
refers more vaguely to “several drugs or devices that may cause the demise of
an already conceived but not yet attached human embryo.” Therefore there is no way
of knowing at this early stage of the litigation which forms of birth control
are at stake in the Conestoga Wood case—even by the plaintiffs’ own lights.
Perhaps it’s the four methods identified by Hobby Lobby . . . or fewer; or
perhaps even more: For example, although the FDA website doesn’t mention
it, the FDA-approved
labeling for Seasonale, a birth-control pill, reads: “Although the
primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations
include changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of
sperm entry into the uterus) and changes in the endometrium (which reduce the
likelihood of implantation.” Is Seasonale a potential “abortifacient” in
the eyes of Conestoga Wood’s owners? We don’t yet know. What we do
know is that there are plenty of groups (and presumably employers) out there
who think that more than four of the FDA-approved methods of birth
control are morally problematic because they might prevent implantation of the
embryo in some case: See, for example, this
website, concluding that ten or more of the methods involve “embryocide.”
In sum, these
two cases nominally involve objections to at least four of the 18 FDA-approved
forms of birth control covered by the HHS Rule—the two types of IUDs, ella and
Plan B—even though none of them is, in fact, an abortifacient as that term is
understood in the law and in the medical and scientific communities, even
though none of them primarily works by preventing embryo implantation, and even
though there is little or no evidence that some of those methods ever prevent pregnancy by inhibiting
implantation.
But the two
cases might involve even more than four of the 18 FDA-approved methods—perhaps
most of them. Alternatively, it might turn out, after discovery and the
courts’ assessment of the evidence, that even on plaintiffs’ own RFRA theories,
they would be entitled to exemptions for fewer than four of the methods—if, for
example, the trial courts were to conclude that there is no evidence that some
of those methods prevent implantation of an embryo.
The plaintiffs’
claims might also raise a bunch of thorny issues of implementation: Would
the exemption extend, for instance, to cases in which employees use birth
control in a manner that is virtually certain not to result in prevention of implantation (such as timely use of
an IUD, which ought to prevent fertilization before implantation could ever be
an issue)?
3. On the
other hand . . . although the scope and implementation of possible exemptions
for these particular plaintiffs might be uncertain and speculative at this very
preliminary stage of the litigation, the
implications for what is at stake in the Supreme Court’s decision certainly
extend well beyond any particular birth-control methods—indeed, beyond
contraception itself.
Several of the
other plaintiffs who have brought challenges to the HHS Rule, for instance—including
most or all of the Catholic objectors—object to each and every form of
FDA-approved contraception, because they claim that their religious teachings
condemn contraception as such. If the Court were to rule in favor of
Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, then, the decision might well require the
government to afford RFRA exemptions to other for-profit employers to permit exclusion of all contraceptives and sterilization
procedures from their employee plans.
Nor is the case
only about contraception. It is very easy to contemplate employers
who have religious objections to other forms of mandated preventive health
services, such as
vaccinations for chicken pox, Hepatitis A, and Rubella. Others may
object to coverage of routine patient costs for items and services furnished in
connection with participation in certain clinical trials. (This last
example, and others along this slippery slope, are described in much greater
detail at pages 68-77 of Judge Rovner’s dissenting opinion in the Seventh
Circuit’s recent Korte decision.)
Indeed, the
impact of the Court's decision will hardly be limited to preventive care, or health
insurance, either. Federal law imposes countless requirements and
restrictions on for-profit employers, many of which conflict with sincerely
held religious views of the owners or managers of the regulated enterprises.
A ruling in favor of plaintiffs here, then, could presage RFRA claims for “myriad
exceptions flowing from a wide variety of religious beliefs,” U.S. v. Lee, 455 U.S. at 260, in the
commercial sphere.
In one
of his posts, Eugene Volokh stresses that, under RFRA, a court is not ordinarily
supposed to consider the costs of exemptions beyond those specifically sought
by the plaintiffs before the court:
In the ordinary
case (such as O Centro itself), that
may well be the proper method of RFRA adjudication, at least for a lower court.
In this case, however, the Supreme Court will almost certainly be taking a
wider view, for at least two reasons.
First, both of
these cases come to the court at a very preliminary stage, before any discovery
has been taken and without any factual findings. Therefore, as explained
above, we don’t even know which forms of birth control would be covered by the
exemptions sought by the plaintiffs. (What if it turned out that none of
the methods in question actually prevent implantation, for instance? What
if most of the 18 methods could do so, at least in theory?) Nor will the
Court know exactly how and to what extent the government’s interests—and women’s
health and economic equality—would be implicated by an employee plan that
covered some particular forms of contraception and not others, a question that
the trial courts have not yet considered. So, to the extent the case
truly were only about the exemptions
sought by the plaintiffs in these two cases, the case would hardly be ripe for
the Court’s consideration.
Second, and more
fundamentally, there have been a slew of cases filed by for-profit employers
against the HHS Rule (45, by the Becket Fund’s count);
and presumably the Court granted the petitions in these two particular cases in
order to afford some significant guidance to the lower courts in resolving
those dozens of other cases. A decision limited to the RFRA balancing in
the idiosyncratic circumstances of particular employers objecting to so-called “implantation-preventing
contraceptives” would be unlikely to resolve the hard questions in those other
cases—most of which involve more categorical objections to all manner of
contraception.
For these
reasons, I doubt the Court will limit its analysis to forms of birth control to
which these plaintiffs object. Its rationale is likely to extend to
religious objections to all forms of contraception, at a minimum . . . and
perhaps further still.
Posted 5:36 AM by Marty Lederman [link]
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers ![]() Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) ![]() David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) ![]() Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). ![]() Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) ![]() Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) ![]() Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) ![]() Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) ![]() Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) ![]() Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution ![]() Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) ![]() Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) ![]() Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) ![]() Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) ![]() Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic ![]() Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) ![]() David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) ![]() Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |