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
Can an employer make his employees foot the bill for his religious
beliefs? Merely to ask this question is to answer it. “Religious liberty” does not and cannot include the right to
impose the costs of observing one’s
religion on someone else, especially in the for-profit workplace. Until Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius,this was
a basic and unquestioned aspect of the law of freedom of religion. The Establishment
Clause forbids accommodations of religion in the for-profit workplace that
impose significant burdens on identifiable and discrete third parties. In Hobby Lobby, a group
of employers are demanding the right to refuse health insurance coverage of contraception
needed by women who do not share the employers’ religious
beliefs.Upholding the exemption would
shift the cost of accommodating Hobby Lobby’s
religious beliefs about contraception to those women. Such cost-shifting
violates the Establishment Clause.
Frederick Mark Gedicks, Jr. and I make this argument in a new essay, "Invisible
Women:Why an
Exemption for Hobby Lobby Would Violate the Establishment Clause." It is part of a roundtable on Hobby Lobby just published online in Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc.