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 Rahmansabeel.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
Court grants all seven nonprofit petitions in contraceptive coverage cases, henceforth to be collectively referred to as "Zubik v. Burwell" [UPDATED to include briefing schedule]
Marty Lederman
Today the Court decided not to decide among the seven petitions in the contraceptive cases--it granted (and consolidated) them all on the RFRA question. The Court did not grant on the two questions alleging that the government has impermissibly discriminated among religious organizations, one of which (in Zubik) was nominally a RFRA question and the other of which (in Little Sisters) was framed as a First Amendment question.
The case will be argued some time between March 21 and March 30. Presumably only one of the five counsel of record for petitioners will present oral argument--if I had to guess, it'll be Paul Clement or Noel Francisco. (The Court itself ordinarily leaves it to the parties in such a situation to figure out a way to decide which counsel will argue.) The Court has also asked the parties "to submit a joint proposal for briefing on the merits that will keep the number of briefs to a minimum and avoid repetition of argument." Therefore I don't think we should expect to see 400+ pages of party briefs topside and 200+ pages on reply. The petitioners might even decide to submit a single, unified brief at each stage. [UPDATE: The Court has granted the parties' proposal for briefing:
Petitioners in Nos. 14-1418, 14-1453, and 14-1505 will file one consolidated opening brief and one reply brief. Petitioners in Nos. 15-35, 15-105, 15-119, and 15-191 will file one consolidated opening brief and one reply brief. Petitioners’ opening briefs, not to exceed 20,000 words each, are to be filed on or before January 4, 2016. Respondents will file one consolidated brief, not to exceed 22,500 words, on or before February 10, 2016. Petitioners’ reply briefs, not to exceed 8,000 words each, are to be filed on or before March 11, 2016.]
The decision of the Court will likely be captioned, and popularly referred to, as No. 14-1418, Zubik v. Burwell, which was the first of the petitions to be filed. [UPDATE: See my post here about who "Zubik" is, and offering a typology of the many different sorts of petitioners (and insurance plans) in the seven cases.]