Search for: "Smith v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc." Results 1 - 20 of 25
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Oct 2014, 9:01 pm by Marci A. Hamilton
Smith and Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. [read post]
11 Dec 2013, 7:28 pm by Marty Lederman
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialty Corp. v. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 3:36 pm by Marty Lederman
  A holding that the three corporations at issue here--Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., Mardel, Inc., and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. [read post]
15 Jul 2014, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
Hobby Lobby have begun to move from anger to action. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 9:06 am by Michael Dorf
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. [read post]
24 Dec 2020, 4:15 am by Howard Friedman
Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter & Paul Home v Pennsylvania...; Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc....), those cases were not decided under the First Amendment, but under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993....The petitioners rely on language from Justice Gorsuch's concurrence in Masterpiece Cakeshop, joined by Justice Alito, which characterized the Smith rule as "controversial in many… [read post]
7 Jul 2014, 10:18 am by John Eastman
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., its application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to closely held corporations, and what the decision portends for the so-called accommodation for groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor that is currently being litigated. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 1:53 pm by David Gans
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 2:29 pm by Eugene Volokh
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014), or Smith, where a religious group or person is asking for an accommodation or exemption from a generally applicable law. [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 9:07 am by Marty Lederman
 First, a quick note on the government's new final rules regarding the religious accommodation (including its extension to some for-profit employers such as Hobby Lobby, Inc.). [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 6:08 am by Joy Waltemath
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., where the court held that the mandate violated the RFRA with respect to corporations that were neither automatically exempt from the mandate as religious employers nor eligible for the accommodation, was not instructive because the Hobby Lobby Court did not address the second question of the substantial burden analysis. [read post]