In a recent op-ed for Slate, Professor Nelson Tebbe dissected media coverage of "off the wall" constitutional arguments – specifically, the “lopsided” story in the New York Times on Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. The case, one of two that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear, challenges the requirement that most employers provide contraceptive coverage in their employee health insurance plans.
At issue is whether for-profit corporations can have rights of religious conscience. Professor Tebbe wrote that the Times leaned in favor of the rights of corporations – an example, he writes, of when mainstream media “accept flawed legal arguments uncritically." He outlined these flaw specifically, concluding that “the rights of large, for-profit employers are necessarily limited.”
Continuing discussion of the case, Professor Tebbe also coauthored a series of posts for the Balkinization blog. The writings appear in three parts: The Establishment Clause and the Contraception Mandate, Hobby Lobby and the Establishment Clause, Part II: What Counts as a Burden on Employees?, and Hobby Lobby and the Establishment Clause, Part III: Reconciling Amos and Cutter.
Read more about Professor Tebbe.