I am happy to have joined an amicus brief together with several other constitutional law professors –but written by Doug Laycock and some excellent lawyers in Austin, Texas — in Stormans v. Salecky, a case currently being litigated in the Western District of Washington and the Ninth Circuit. The case concerns the free exercise rights of several pharmacists at small pharmacies who have religious conscience objections to dispensing Plan B emergency contraception, and who are being compelled to do so by the Washington State Board of Pharmacy’s regulations requiring all pharmacies to dispense certain drugs, without exception. I am particularly keen on the description in the brief of Smith and Lukumi-Babalu as representing a kind of range of general applicability — the idea being that many cases will fall somewhere between those two points. That’s nifty, because one often sees Lukumi instead described as an “exception” to the Smith “rule,” which has different connotations. You can read more about the case in Judge Leighton’s most recent opinion.
- Holman, “Beholden: Religion, Global Health, and Human Rights”
- Islam, “Limits of Islamism: Jamaat-e-Islami in Contemporary India and Bangladesh”
- Gigantor Takes Over Blogging at CLR Forum
- Call for Papers: “Regulating Religion: Normativity and Change at the Intersection of Law and Religion”
- Crabtree, “Holy Nation”
- “Judaism, Christianity, and Islam” (Gilman, ed.)
- Free Exercise by Moonlight
- Canada’s Hobby Lobby Moment?
- Miah, “Muslims, Schooling and the Question of Self-Segregation”