Professor Volokh's Comments on Hobby Lobby Decision Widely Cited

July 2, 2014 – Professor Eugene Volokh has written multiple posts on the Hobby Lobby decision, and his comments have been cited in leading media outlets, including in a Chicago Tribune op-ed.

UCLA law professor and law blogger Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment scholar, crisply synthesized the court's point:

To be sure, a corporation is a legal fiction; it cannot itself practice religion, or for that matter do anything else. It acts only through people. But - precisely because a corporation is just a legal fiction - when a law requires such a corporation to do something that its owners believe to be religiously forbidden, it burdens the religious freedom of those real owners, and not just of the fictional corporation itself. (The court says) "protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby ... protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies."

Read the entire op-ed.

He is cited in a PolitiFact article.

"It’s not clear to me that this would be so for blood transfusions and immunizations; and if it isn’t so, then the proposed alternative means might be too difficult to implement," said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA.

Read the entire article.

His comments appear on KPCC.

"Basically, what it has done is created an exemption from federal law for religious objectors," says Eugene Volokh, a constitutional law professor at UCLA. "That if a person has a religious objection to a law and concludes the law requires him to do something that is religiously forbidden, then he can generally get an exemption unless the government can show denying the exemption is really necessary to serve its compelling interest." 

Read the entire article.

Read Professor Volokh’s summary of the decision.

Read his thoughts on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Read his post on the win for Hobby Lobby.