WUSTL Experts Available to Discuss SCOTUS Abortion Protest and Contraception Mandate Decisions
Source Newsroom: Washington University in St. Louis
John Inazu and Elizabeth Sepper, professors of law at Washington University in St. Louis, are available to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court’s upcoming McCullen v. Coakley and Hobby Lobby decisions. More information, including links to their related amicus briefs, is below.
John Inazu, professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, is available to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court decision in McCullen v. Coakley.
Inazu co-authored an amicus brief in this case on behalf of a broad coalition of religious groups. "If Massachusetts can close off the sidewalks surrounding reproductive health centers to peaceful expressive activity, then the government can prohibit expression in a wide range of circumstances,” he says.
In his brief, Inazu emphasizes the “sheer magnitude of these restrictions,” noting that this statute criminalizes almost any use of the sidewalk near a reproductive health-care facility, including conversations between two willing participants or even a person singing or praying quietly to herself.
Elizabeth Sepper, professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, is available to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby.
Sepper co-authored an amicus brief in this case arguing that Hobby Lobby’s request is unconstitutional.
The legal brief states that a religious exemption for Hobby Lobby would mean that a “business owner in the United States will be empowered to reject insurance coverage for contraception or any other medical prescription, procedure, treatment, or health service it finds religiously objectionable.”
“Granting the exemption would shift the cost of accommodating Hobby Lobby’s religious exercise to employees who do not share its beliefs,” argues Sepper. “Such cost shifting violates the Establishment Clause.”