Scholars Cited in 7th Circuit Contraceptive Mandate Opinion

November 9th, 2013

I agree with Derek Muller that 7th Circuit’s opinion in Korte v. Sebelius is the “most extensive and thoughtful discussion” of the contraceptive mandate issue in the context of RFRA and constitutional rights for closely held corporations.

Here, I’ll highlight the number of scholars and law reviews Judge Sykes cites in the majority opinion. It’s a who’s who of religion-clause scholars There are a lot (I may have missed a few).

Michael Stokes Paulsen, A RFRA Runs Through It: Religious Freedom and the U.S. Code, 56 MONT. L. REV. 249, 253 (1995).

Douglas Laycock & Oliver S. Thomas, Interpreting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 73 TEX. L. REV. 209, 211 (1994); see also Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Federal Rules of Statutory Interpretation, 115 HARV. L. REV. 2085, 2110 (2002)

Thomas C. Berg, What Hath Congress Wrought? An Interpretative Guide to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 39 VILL. L.REV. 1, 25–26 (1994)

Michael W. McConnell, The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion, 103 HARV. L. REV. 1409, 1488 (1990) (“[T]he term ‘free exercise’ makes clear that the clause protects religiously motivated conduct as well as belief.”).

Douglas Laycock, Towards a General Theory of the Religion Clauses: The Case of Church Labor Relations and the Right to Church Autonomy, 81 COLUM. L. REV. 1373, 1388–89 (1981); Eugene Volokh, A Common-Law Model for Religious Exemptions, 46 UCLA L. REV. 1465, 1505–08 (1999).

Richard W. Garnett, A Hands-Off Approach to Religious Doctrine: What Are We Talking About?, 84 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 837, 861 (2009)

Richard W. Garnett, Standing, Spending, and Separation: How the No-Establishment Rule Does (and Does Not) Protect Conscience, 54 VILL. L. REV. 655, 674 (2009); see also Paul Horwitz, Churches as First Amendment Institutions: Of Sovereignty and Spheres, 44 HARV. C.R.-C.L. L. REV. 79, 116–22 (2009).

See also Thomas C. Berg, The Voluntary Principle and Church Autonomy, Then and Now, 2004 BYU L. REV. 1593 (2004); Gerard V. Bradley, Church Autonomy in the Constitutional Order: The End of Church and State?, 49 LA. L. REV. 1057 (1989); Kathleen A. Brady, Religious Organizations and Free Exercise: The Surprising Lessons of Smith, 2004 BYU L. REV. 1633 (2004); Richard W. Garnett, Do Churches Matter? Towards an Institutional Under- standing of the Religion Clauses, 53 VILL. L. REV. 273 (2008); Christopher C. Lund, In Defense of the Ministerial Exception, 90 N.C. L. REV. 1 (2011); Howard M. Wasserman, Prescriptive Jurisdiction, Adjudicative Jurisdiction, and the Ministerial Exemption, 160 U. PA. L. REV. PENNUMBRA 289 (2012).

See Darrell A. H. Miller, Guns, Inc.: Citizens United, McDonald, and the Future of Corporate Constitu- tional Rights, 86 N.Y.U. L. REV. 887, 908–11 (2011)


I am a fan of Judge Sykes citing law review articles.

Judge Rovner in dissent cites a few law review article as well.

Michael W. McConnell, The Origins & Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion, 103 HARV. L. REV. 1409, 1481, 1483, 1485 (1990); Vincent Phillip Muñoz, The Original Meaning of the Free Exercise Clause: The Evidence from the First Congress, 31 HARV. J. L. & PUB. POL. 1083 (2008).

Philip A. Hamburger, A Constitutional Right of Religious Exemption: An Historical Perspective, 60 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 915, 933–34 & n.80 (1992).

See Ira C. Lupu, Keeping the Faith: Religion, Equality & Speech in the U.S. Constitution, 18 Conn. L. Rev. 739, 766 (1986) (“By their nature, institutions cannot have a conscience or faith.”);