Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby, Zubik, and related cases [UPDATED through Nov. 8, 2015]

For our readers' convenience, I'm collecting here in one place links to all Balkinization posts about Hobby Lobby, Conestoga Wood, Notre Dame, and Little Sisters, et al., along with links to the briefs and oral argument in Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood and to a few other important posts about these cases.  We'll try to keep the list relatively current as the litigation proceeds.
 
Marty Lederman's Posts on Hobby Lobby

Hobby Lobby Part I -- Framing the issues (Dec. 11, 2013)

Hobby Lobby Part II -- What's it all about? (contraception?  abortifacients?  other religious objections to elements of health insurance?) (Dec. 13, 2013)

Hobby Lobby Part III -- There is no "employer mandate" (Dec. 16, 2013)

Hobby Lobby Part III-A -- Does federal law substantially pressure employers to offer health insurance coverage in violation of religious obligations, even though there is no “employer mandate”? (Dec. 28, 2013)

Hobby Lobby Part III-B -- Is it necessary that the government-imposed pressure to violate a religious obligation be substantial? (Jan. 8, 2014)

Hobby Lobby Part IV -- The myth of underinclusiveness (Jan. 21, 2014)

Hobby Lobby Part V -- Whose Religious Exercise?  Of corporations, for-profit employers, and individual plaintiffs acting in their various corporate capacities (Jan. 28, 2014)

Hobby Lobby Part VI --  The parties' common ground . . . and a fundamental divide about religious exemptions for for-profit employers (Feb. 16, 2014)

Hobby Lobby Part VII -- Hobby Lobby's arguments on compelling interest and the alleged exemption "honeycomb" (Feb. 17, 2014)

Hobby Lobby Part VIII -- Hobby Lobby's identification of the "precise religious exercise at issue here," and some thoughts on whether federal law substantially burdens it (Feb. 19, 2014)

Hobby Lobby Part IX -- There is no "employer mandate," redux: The plaintiffs' arguments about the option of not offering an employee health insurance plan (Feb. 21, 2014)

How to Understand Hobby Lobby [on SCOTUSblog] (Feb. 23, 2014)

Hobby Lobby Part X -- A quick word on the Conestoga Wood reply brief (Mar. 12, 2014)  

Hobby Lobby Part XI -- Governor Brewer’s Veto in Arizona . . . and Hobby Lobby (Mar. 12, 2014)

Hobby Lobby Part XII -- On Abortions and "Abortifacients" (Mar. 22, 2014)

Hobby Lobby Part XIII -- Shareholder claims, Professor Bainbridge, and the red herring of "insider reverse veil piercing" (Mar. 24, 2014)

Asking the Wrong Questions in Hobby Lobby [on the Conglomerate Blog] (Mar. 24, 2014) 

The myth of "exemptions" that are said to undermine the government's compelling interests [on the Conglomerate Blog] (Mar. 25, 2014)

Hobby Lobby Part XIV -- How this week’s Sixth Circuit decision in a nonprofit case can inform the Supreme Court's "substantial burden" analysis in Hobby Lobby (June 14, 2014)

Hobby Lobby Part XV -- “There’s No Employer Mandate” Update: The Justices’ engagement at oral argument, and an important new Standard & Poor’s report (June 15, 2014)

Hobby Lobby Part XVI -- A half-dozen possibilities that shouldn't surprise you in today's decision (June 30, 2014)

Hobby Lobby Part XVII -- Upshot of the decision: A possible win-win solution (and now all eyes turn to Notre Dame) (July 1, 2014)

Hobby Lobby Part XVIII -- The one (potentially) momentous aspect of Hobby Lobby: Untethering RFRA from free exercise doctrine (July 6, 2014)

Who, exactly, is exercising religion? And why does the contraceptive coverage rule burden that religious exercise? [on the Conglomerate] (July 19, 2014)

The Augmented Contraception Coverage Regulations (and an NPRM on extension of the accommodation to some for-profit employers) (Aug. 22, 2014)

Update on the contraception coverage regulations and litigation (July 20, 2015)

* * * *
 
Marty Lederman's posts and other writings on Zubik and other nonprofit cases challenging the contraceptive-coverage accommodation
 
Not Quite Hobby Lobby: The Nonprofit Cases (including Little Sisters and Notre Dame), and Opting Out as Complicity [with UPDATE on Little Sisters "church plan" situation] (Jan. 1, 2014)

Government brief in Little Sisters (Jan. 3, 2014)

Little Sisters State of Play (Jan. 5, 2014)

Not With a Bang . . . (The Supreme Court wisely preserves the status quo in Little Sisters) (Jan. 24, 2014)  

How This Week’s Sixth Circuit Decision in a Nonprofit Case Can Inform the Supreme Court's "Substantial Burden" Analysis in Hobby Lobby (June 14, 2014)
 
Is the Court’s attempt at a compromise order in Wheaton College based upon a misunderstanding of the law? [on SCOTUSblog] (July 4, 2014)

What next in Wheaton College?  Is it also a "win/win" compromise? (July 4, 2014)

Unpacking the forthcoming RFRA challenges to the government's accommodation (with emphasis on self-insured plans) (July 18, 2014)

Confirmation that the Supreme Court's suggested fix will almost certainly not mollify the plaintiffs: Recent developments in the nonprofit challenges to the contraceptive coverage accommodation (July 24, 2014)

The Augmented Contraception Coverage Regulations (and an NPRM on extension of the accommodation to some for-profit employers) (Aug. 22, 2014)

Update on the contraception coverage regulations and litigation (July 20, 2015; further UPDATED Aug. 8 and Aug. 22, 2015)

First Government opposition brief in nonprofit cases challenging the contraceptive coverage accommodation (Aug. 13, 2015)

On to the Supreme Court:  Status update on Roman Catholic Archbishop, Little Sisters, and the other nonprofit contraception accommodation cases (Sept. 30, 2015; UPDATED with Little Sisters reply brief)

Court grants all seven nonprofit petitions in contraceptive coverage cases, henceforth to be collectively referred to as "Zubik v. Burwell" (Nov. 6, 2015)

Who is the "Zubik" in Zubik v. Burwell . . . and why is he allegedly complicit in the use of contraception? (Nov. 8, 2015) [UPDATED with list and categorization of all 37 petitioners]

Brief of Amici Curiae Scholars of Religious Liberty Sarah Barringer Gordon, R. Kent
Greenawalt, Martin S. Lederman, Ira C. Lupu, and Robert W. Tuttle in Support of Respondents, Zubik v. Burwell, Nos. 14-1418, et al. (Feb. 17, 2016) 

Reconstructing RFRA: The Contested Legacy of Religious Freedom Restoration, 125 YALE L.J. F. 416 (March 2016)

Update on Zubik--the nonprofit contraceptive case--and an online symposium on NeJaime and Siegel's Conscience Wars (March 20, 2016)

The Zubik oral argument (Part I): Of substantial burdens and "hijacking" (March 24, 2016)

The Zubik oral argument (Part II): Is the theoretical prospect of a new statutory "subsidized contraception-only exchange plan option" a less restrictive means of advancing the government's interests? (March 25, 2016)

Making sense of the supplemental filings in Zubik (Apr. 14, 2016)

The Zubik supplemental reply briefs (Apr. 21, 2016)

What to expect from the Zubik remand: a possible solution for "church plans," but otherwise no obvious common ground (May 17, 2016)

* * * *

The Briefs in Zubik, et al.

can all be found here.


The Briefs in Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood

can all be found here.

The Oral Argument transcript and audio

are here, and here, respectively

* * * * 

Other Balkinization posts on Hobby Lobby, Wheaton College, et al.

Nelson Tebbe, Richard Schragger, and Micah Schwartzman, The Establishment Clause and the Contraception Mandate (Nov. 27, 2013)

Joey Fishkin, Hobby Lobby: Federal Agent (Nov. 30, 2013)


Nelson Tebbe, Richard Schragger, and Micah Schwartzman, Hobby Lobby and the Establishment Clause, Part II: What Counts As A Burden on Employees? (Dec. 4, 2013)

Nelson Tebbe, Richard Schragger, and Micah Schwartzman, Hobby Lobby and the Establishment Clause, Part III: Reconciling Amos and Cutter (Dec. 9, 2013)

Nelson Tebbe, Richard Schragger, and Micah Schwartzman, Hobby Lobby and the Establishment Clause: Gedicks and the Government (Jan. 21, 2014)

David Gans, Can Corporations Exercise Religion?: A Response to Douglas Laycock (Feb. 20, 2014)

Priscilla Smith, Whose Faith Does RFRA Protect? Everyone’s, No One’s, Or Not Mine? (Mar. 24, 2014)

Andrew Koppelman, Invisible Women (Mar. 25, 2014)

Nelson Tebbe, Today's Oral Argument in Hobby Lobby (Mar. 25, 2014)

Gerard N. Magliocca, What the Affordable Care Act Subsidy Case Tells Us (Mar. 26, 2014)

Mark Tushnet, Shelby County and Hobby Lobby (Apr. 20, 2014)

Andrew Koppelman, Hobby Lobby, a small victory for women's rights (June 30, 2014)

Sandy Levinson, Justice Ginsburg's inexplicable first two pages (June 30, 2014)

Joey Fishkin, Hobby Lobby and the Politics of Recognition (June 30, 2014)

Jason Mazzone, Hobby Lobby as Separation of Powers (June 30, 2014)

Jason Mazzone, Hobby Lobby: Breyer and Kagan (July 1, 2014)

Jason Mazzone, Horwitz on Hobby Lobby (and notes on Putnam and Campbell) (July 2, 2014)

Richard Schragger, Micah Schwartzman, and Nelson Tebbe, Not Bill Clinton’s RFRA (July 3, 2014)

Andrew Koppelman, Wheaton v. Hobby Lobby (July 4, 2014)

Sandy Levinson, The elephant in the room (July 4, 2014)

Mark Tushnet, Congress Enacted Single-Payer Health Care! (July 11, 2014)

* * * *

Other important online writing about Hobby Lobby

Eugene Volokh, My Hobby Lobby Posts, in a Single Word Document

Mark Tushnet, Do For-profit Corporations Have Rights of Religious Conscience?

Ira Lupu & Robert Tuttle, Religious freedom and savings constructions

Doug Laycock, Congress answered this question:  Corporations are covered

Michael Dorf, Why is RFRA still valid against the federal government?

Contraception v. Religious Freedom: Hobby Lobby Heads to the Supreme Court - See more at: http://religionandpolitics.org/2014/03/19/contraception-v-religious-freedom-hobby-lobby-heads-to-the-supreme-court/#sthash.4Hl2IXMW.dpuf

Tracy Fessenden, Contraception v. Religious Freedom:  Hobby Lobby Heads to the Supreme Court

Pema Levy, When Is a Mandate Not a Mandate? Ask the Supreme Court

Walter Dellinger, Contraception as a test of equality

There are also a bunch of valuable posts over at Dorf on Law and on the Conglomerate.

 

Contraception v. Religious Freedom: Hobby Lobby Heads to the Supreme Court - See more at: http://religionandpolitics.org/2014/03/19/contraception-v-religious-freedom-hobby-lobby-heads-to-the-supreme-court/#sthash.4Hl2IXMW.dpuf

Contraception v. Religious Freedom: Hobby Lobby Heads to the Supreme Court - See more at: http://religionandpolitics.org/2014/03/19/contraception-v-religious-freedom-hobby-lobby-heads-to-the-supreme-court/#sthash.4Hl2IXMW.dpuf

Contraception v. Religious Freedom: Hobby Lobby Heads to the Supreme Court - See more at: http://religionandpolitics.org/2014/03/19/contraception-v-religious-freedom-hobby-lobby-heads-to-the-supreme-court/#sthash.4Hl2IXMW.dpuf

Contraception v. Religious Freedom: Hobby Lobby Heads to the Supreme Court - See more at: http://religionandpolitics.org/2014/03/19/contraception-v-religious-freedom-hobby-lobby-heads-to-the-supreme-court/#sthash.4Hl2IXMW.dpuf

Contraception v. Religious Freedom: Hobby Lobby Heads to the Supreme Court - See more at: http://religionandpolitics.org/2014/03/19/contraception-v-religious-freedom-hobby-lobby-heads-to-the-supreme-court/#sthash.4Hl2IXMW.dpuf

Contraception v. Religious Freedom: Hobby Lobby Heads to the Supreme Court - See more at: http://religionandpolitics.org/2014/03/19/contraception-v-religious-freedom-hobby-lobby-heads-to-the-supreme-court/#sthash.4Hl2IXMW.dpuf