Search for: "David Gans" Results 161 - 180 of 284
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Feb 2014, 12:16 am by Marty Lederman
Nelson Tebbe, Richard Schragger, and Micah Schwartzman, Hobby Lobby and the Establishment Clause, Part III: Reconciling Amos and Cutter Nelson Tebbe, Richard Schragger, and Micah Schwartzman, Hobby Lobby and the Establishment Clause: Gedicks and the Government David Gans, Can Corporations Exercise Religion? [read post]
6 Feb 2014, 1:14 pm
A Slate article by David Gans makes much of the fact that business groups haven’t stood up to support Hobby Lobby’s religious exemption claims: This spring, the Supreme Court will decide — for the first time in our nation’s history — whether secular, for-profit corporations are entitled to invoke the constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion. [read post]
5 Feb 2014, 4:59 am by Amy Howe
”  And at Slate, David Gans argues that, “[a]part from a few isolated briefs from companies just like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, the U.S. business community offered no support for the claim that secular, for-profit corporations are persons that can exercise religion. [read post]
17 Jan 2014, 5:55 am by Amy Howe
At the Constitutional Accountability Center’s Text and History blog, David H. [read post]
26 Nov 2013, 6:51 am by Amy Howe
  Michael McConnell, David Gans, and Jeffrey Rosen discuss the cases and issues in a podcast for the National Constitution Center, while Beverly Mann does the same in a post at Angry Bear. [read post]
29 Oct 2013, 5:58 am by Amy Howe
At the Constitutional Accountability Center’s Text and History blog, David H. [read post]
22 Oct 2013, 3:04 pm by Kali Borkoski
 At the Constitutional Accountability Center’s Text and History Blog, David Gans summarizes the argument – made in a CAC amicus brief – that the Court should not recognize constitutional protection for a corporation’s free exercise of religion. [read post]
15 Oct 2013, 5:32 am by Amy Howe
Gans responds to Hasen, criticizing what he characterizes as Hasen’s “faulty originalism. [read post]
11 Oct 2013, 4:35 am by Amy Howe
”  The National Constitution Center’s Jeffrey Rosen spoke with David Gans and Ilya Shapiro about the case; that interview is available in a podcast. [read post]
9 Aug 2013, 7:08 am by Jonathan H. Adler
 Contrary to David Gans’ claim, I do not think it is the case that business corporations cannot have religious purposes. [read post]
6 Aug 2013, 9:50 pm by Will Baude
(Will Baude) I’ve seen some skeptical responses to my previous post about corporations and free exercise, of which Dahlia Lithwick’s and David Gans’s are emblematic. [read post]
2 Aug 2013, 7:59 am by Conor McEvily
Elsewhere, at the Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC), David H. [read post]
1 Aug 2013, 6:38 am by Dan Stein
At the Constitutional Accountability Center, David H. [read post]
4 Jun 2013, 7:47 am by Sarah Erickson-Muschko
In an op-ed for the Austin American Statesman, David Gans discusses Fisher v. [read post]
3 Jun 2013, 6:17 am by Marissa Miller
At the blog of the National Constitution Center, David Gans and Doug Kendall argue that the Court’s upcoming decisions in high-profile cases like affirmative action and same-sex marriage should be judged on whether they can be squared with what they describe as the core principles at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment. [read post]
23 May 2013, 8:12 am by Matthew Lanahan
  Briefly: At the Constitutional Accountability Center’s Text & History Blog, David H. [read post]
13 May 2013, 6:17 am by Marissa Miller
At the Constitutional Accountability Center, David Gans responds to Clegg’s post, countering that “the Voting Rights Act is not simply about increasing African American voter turnout, but about preventing all forms of voting discrimination. [read post]
29 Apr 2013, 5:08 am by Marissa Miller
At the Text & History blog of the Constitutional Accountability Center, Simon Lazarus and David Gans note that at the oral arguments in Nassar, “members of the conservative bloc seemed ready, for the first time in the Court’s history, to treat retaliation as categorically different from, ‘secondary’ to, and deserving of a lower measure of protection than, a substantive on-the-job discriminatory act. [read post]