Home » Imaginary Contradictions: A Reply to Professor Oleske
Imaginary Contradictions: A Reply to Professor Oleske
PDF · Douglas Laycock · Mar-29-2014 · 67 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc. 89 (2014)
James M. Oleske, Jr., The Public Meaning of RFRA Versus Legislators’ Understanding of RLPA: A Response to Professor Laycock67 VAND. L. REV. EN BANC 125 (2014)
Although not a part of the original roundtable, the Vanderbilt Law Review is pleased to also present this paper by Professor Doug Laycock, the Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. Professor Laycock authored an amicus brief in the Hobby Lobby case on behalf of the Christian Legal Society. His paper here is a response to Professor James Oleske’s Obamacare, RFRA, and the Perils of Legislative History, which critiques Professor Laycock’s amicus brief. Further inquiries can be directed to Professor Laycock, email@example.com, and Professor Oleske, firstname.lastname@example.org.