In a panel discussion at Harvard Law School in October commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Professor Kenneth W. Mack, characterized the legislation as the culmination of decades of struggle for racial equality by African-American activists and organizations. But he also pointed out that it stemmed from the growth of federalist thinking starting in […]
In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that closely held, for-profit corporations have a right to exercise the religious beliefs of their owners and therefore cannot be required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to provide contraception coverage to employees if it conflicts with those views. The Gazette spoke with Harvard Law School Professor Mark Tushnet about the decision and what it means for future corporate challenges to the Affordable Care Act.
“Religious Accommodation in the Age of Civil Rights,” a conference held at Harvard Law School April 3–5, brought together a group of distinguished legal scholars to discuss a broad range of controversies that have developed in recent years as marriage equality and anti-discrimination laws have prompted some religious organizations and private companies to assert claims of religious liberty and exemption from compliance with the law.
However much presidents want to influence the future through their judicial appointments, the problem, Professor Mark Tushnet writes in his new book, “In the Balance: Law and Politics on the Roberts Court” (Norton, 2013), “is that things change.”
The Harvard Gazette recently spoke with Harvard Law School Professor Mark Tushnet about two upcoming challenges to the Affordable Care Act involving for-profit companies that object on religious grounds to providing contraceptive coverage to their employees.