Great Speaker Monday March 9 at Noon

Don't miss Prof. Jim Duane's entertaining and informative talk on why even innocent persons should not speak to the police when they are suspected of a crime.

I have seen Jim speak many times, and he is one of the best speakers anywhere on legal issues.

Monday March 9 at Noon! Free lunch!

First Ten Today

Let's talk about this article on tolerance and who is intolerant of whom.

Link

Here is the situation--a customer asks a florist to provide flowers for his same-sex wedding. The florist is a devout Christian, and her religious beliefs require her to refrain from facilitating a same-sex marriage. The customer complains to state authorities and wishes the government to punish the florist for her religiously-motivated actions.

In a pluralistic society committed to tolerance, how should this matter be resolved?

Religious Garb in Public Schools

Suppose a public school forbids Muslim girls from wearing religious head coverings such as head scarves or hijabs? Suppose the policy states that "no student may wear any religious clothing or headgear" during the public school day? Suppose the school allows children undergoing chemotherapy to wear a scarf to cover their baldness?

Thursday Feb. 26 Readings

For Thursday's class, read the first 2 Free Exercise assignments:



1. Linder Introduction (Link); Reynolds case (Link)


2. Casebook p. 1702-1708; Goldman case (Link)

France and the Niquab

From the ReligionClause blog:

Why Has The Niqab Become So Controversial In France?

Today's New York Times carries and interesting and provocative analysis of why wearing of the niqab (full face veil) by Muslim women has become such a controversial issue in France. (A French ban on wearing the full face veil in public took effect last week.)  Here are some excerpts:

In French culture, the eyes are supposed to meet in public, to invite a conversation or just to exchange a visual greeting with a stranger. Among Muslims, the eyes of men and women are not supposed to meet, even by chance, and especially not in public or between strangers....

French tradition has also long encouraged mixing of the sexes in social situations. “The veil ... interrupts the circulation of coquetry and of paying homage, in declaring that there is another possible way for the sexes to coexist: strict separation.”

A more familiar explanation for French antagonism to the facial veil is historical and political: the deep-rooted French fear, resentment and rejection of the “other” — the immigrant, the invader, the potential terrorist or abuser of human rights who eats, drinks, prays and dresses differently, and refuses to assimilate in the French way.....

Meanwhile, France will remain France — the land where the uncovered body is celebrated. Billboards and posters on Paris streets regularly feature naked breasts and buttocks.

First Ten

Chip sent me a link to this article as a possible topic for a first 10 discussion.

What are your thoughts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/23/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-attack-leads-to-changes-in-french-schools.html?_r=1

Holt v. Hobbs and RLUIPA

Very nice article on the significance of the Court's recent unanimous decision at the desert News.

Link

Some excerpts:

The Holt decision is the first time the Supreme Court has ever given substantive meaning to RLUIPA’s protections for religious freedom. In Holt, the court repeatedly emphasized how vast those protections are — “very broad,” “expansive,” “capacious” and “substantial.”
In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the court found that Arkansas’ policy banning beards substantially burdened the inmate’s religious exercise and lacked the high degree of justification required for such a burden. It forced the inmate into an unjust corner — either engage in activity that seriously violates his religious belief or face disciplinary action. The court went further, saying it doesn’t matter that officials permit the prisoner to exercise other aspects of his religion, like having a prayer rug or observing religious holidays. The court said that governments can’t force religious individuals to trade one religious practice for another.
This reasoning shifted the burden to Arkansas to prove both that a “compelling government interest” justified the policy and that the state had used means that were the “least restrictive” to the religious exercise. On whether the interest was compelling, the court held that Arkansas had not proven that its policy interests — for example, preventing the flow of contraband — were advanced by the beard ban. Because Arkansas doesn’t require inmates to shave or crew-cut the hair on top of their heads, it’s hard to see why (or even how) an inmate would hide contraband in a short beard rather than in longer hair on top.
Finally, the court held that Arkansas had not proven its policy was the least restrictive means of accomplishing its objectives, especially when over 40 other state and federal prison systems permit similar beards. Arkansas didn’t show why it can search prisoner’s hair, clothes and quarter-inch medical beards, but not half-inch religious beards....

So if you don’t live in Arkansas, you don’t wear a beard, and you’re not a prisoner, why does the Holt decision matter to you? If you care about religious freedom, Holt will help those defending it in the courts in at least three ways.
First, the Holt decision will help religious prisoners in other RLUIPA cases, such as Jewish prisoners seeking kosher diets. Second, the Holt decision will help religious plaintiffs in land-use cases, making it harder for local governments to treat poorly zoning requests from churches, synagogues and mosques. Third, the Holt decision will help RFRA plaintiffs because the same favorable legal standard (high justification for government burdens on religion) in RLUIPA also applies to RFRA. The Becket Fund is pursuing several RFRA cases, including defending a Native American church barred by discriminatory Interior Department rules from using sacred eagle feathers in its religious ceremonies. Others involve many nonprofit religious organizations opposing the HHS contraception mandate in cases expected soon to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Holt decision is a solid victory for a prisoner who sought to wear a beard in accord with his Muslim faith. But it’s an even more important victory for religious freedom generally, because it shows that the U.S. Supreme Court’s commitment to religious freedom for Americans of all faiths endures.

"Virginia County Reauthorizes 10 Commandments In Schools"

I thought you might be interested in this post from the ReligionClause blog:

Virginia County Reauthorizes 10 Commandments In Schools

The Giles County, Virginia school board has been struggling for months over whether and how copies of the Ten Commandments should be displayed in its schools. As previously reported, for ten years copies of the Ten Commandments had been displayed next to a copy of the Constitution. Last December they were removed after a complaint from the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF). By January they were back up after community members complained about their removal.  But in February they were again removed. And again this was met with student and community protests. Now the Roanoke Times reports that last Tuesday, by a split vote, the school board again voted to restore the Ten Commandments to the schools, but this time with an elaborate resolution (full text) drafted with the advice of the Christian advocacy group, Liberty Counsel. The Ten Commandments are now to be included as part of a display of nine specified historical documents.  The posting of this display in any school can be financed by private parties, and a procedure is set out for others who want to finance the posting of additional historical documents. The FFRF and ACLU say they will file suit.

Here is the text of the resolution referred to above:

Text of Giles County Ten Commandments resolution

Today we received the final version of the resolution Giles County school board passed Tuesday, courtesy district administration.
The full text includes details on how the displays should be rehung, what they’ll contain and why they’ll hang:
RESOLUTION OF GILES COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD FOR POSTING OF HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS


It is recognized by the Board that many documents and symbols, taken as a whole, have special historical significance to our community, our county, and our country’s history.  Some of these documents and symbols include, but are not limited to, the idea of equal justice under law as symbolized by Lady Justice; the Star-Spangled Banner; the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the Declaration of Independence, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the Mayflower Compact, the Magna Carta and the Ten Commandments.


A sense of historical context, civic duty and responsibility, and a general appreciation and understanding of the law of this land are all desirable components of the education of the youth of the county.  We believe these above named documents positively contribute to the educational foundations and moral character of students in our schools.  There may be other documents, speeches, letters, and writings which are equally important as those mentioned above, but, it is our opinion, that these above mentioned documents that may instill qualities desirable of the students in our schools, have had particular historical significance in the development of this country.


For all of these reasons, BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:


1.  The Giles County School Board will allow the posting of the above named documents together, in a display in any school in the district as set forth herein. This historical document display shall include initially a picture of Lady Justice, the Star-Spangled Banner; the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the Declaration of Independence, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the Mayflower Compact, the Magna Carta and the Ten Commandments.  The document display shall also include a brief explanatory document, suitably framed. These historical displays shall be financed by funds of private organizations, and no school funds shall be used for this purpose.  No service of school personnel of the school district shall be utilized during any time such employee is employed by the school district and no school employee shall be required to assist in placing the above mentioned documents in any school.  However, this Board does not prohibit any school employee from volunteering their time to assist in this project should any individual employee desire to do so.


2.  The display of these historical documents shall be uniform in size and content. No document shall be larger or given any prominence over any other document in the display.  A copy of this resolution shall be included with the display with the historical documents.


3.  Any individual, private group, or organization who wishes to finance the posting of the above listed historical documents may be allowed to do so by making a written request to the Superintendent of the Giles County Schools.  The written request shall include the name of the person, individual, or group that wishes to sponsor the historical display at the particular school or schools, and shall contain the name of the school where the documents are requested to be displayed, and shall contain a statement that the person or group agrees to the terms and conditions of this resolution and shall be signed by the person or representative of the sponsor.


4.  Any person, group, or organization that wishes to post any other historical documents at any schools, shall notify the Superintendent of the Giles County Schools in the same manner as is outlined herein above.  Each request must be made in writing and signed by the person, individual, or group that wishes to place any historical document in the school.  They shall attach a copy of the document or documents the person wishes to place in each school and shall cite the particular historical significance and importance of said documents.  The Superintendent shall present the petition to the Giles County School Board.  If the Giles County Board approves the same, a copy of each such historical document shall be added to the historical document display at the schools, at the expense of the person or organization requesting the additional historical document display.  The additional historical documents shall be displayed in the same uniform size and content as other historical documents on display, and shall not be given greater or less prominence that any other historical document on display.  If the Giles County Board refuses the request of any person or group to post additional historical documents, the Board shall state in writing the reasons for refusing the request.


5.  Upon compliance with the above, the Superintendent of the Giles County Schools shall notify the principal of each school for which a display is planned. The principal shall determine where, in that school, the historical documents may be posted.  The principal shall notify the Superintendent that they are posted in the manner consistent with this resolution.  Keeping with our understanding of Virginia and Federal law, persons shall not be compensated by any school funds for their time or expense while serving in this capacity.

Accommodation: Required, Forbiden, Permitted

I would love to start class on Thursday with 10 minutes of your thoughts on this issue:

Let's take a case of a religious student requesting an exemption from some requirement of the public schools.

Take the case of the Catholic student requesting an excused absence from the school's mandatory "safe sex" assembly.

Is the accommodation required by the Free Exercise Clause? Maybe? It depends?

Is it permitted by the EC even if not required by the FEC?

Is it forbidden by the EC, because it amounts to a preference for religious citizens? Suppose I work as a police officer in a small town and I ask to be exempted from Sunday shifts?

What should the answers to these questions be? Please give it a little thought.

What Goes Around Comes Around

George Harrison might have said this is the "sue me sue you blues."

From Outfrontonline:

Pro-LGBT Colorado baker slapped with religious discrimination complaint

 It was an hour into her shift when Lindsay Jones, a pastry chef at Denver’s Azucar Bakery, turned her attention from the full lobby to the “older, professional-looking” gentleman who’d just walked in.

There was nothing strange in his demeanor as he sidled up to the counter to place an order. In fact, he was friendly and his request for a Bible-shaped cake seemed simple enough. Azucar’s owner, Marjorie Silva, tells Out Front that her employees are no strangers to Christian-themed requests and regularly fill them.

“We make [Christian-themed] cakes all the time,” she says. “No problem at all.”
The gentleman took a seat at one of the tables as the team served him free samples and began building his order. He swiped through pics of Bible cakes on the iPad they presented him, and it appeared he’d found the perfect fit. It was only when he produced a leaf of paper from his pocket — careful not to release it to any of the attending employees, but simply brandishing it for them to read before returning it to his pocket — that the order “got a little uncomfortable,” says Lindsay.
“He wanted us to write God hates …” she trails. “Just really radical stuff against gays.”
“He wouldn’t allow me to make a copy of the message, but it was really hateful,” Marjorie adds. “I remember the words detestable, disgrace, homosexuality, and sinners.”
However uncomfortable the request made the pair, both maintain that he was never refused service.
“I told him that I would bake the cake in the shape of a Bible,” says Marjorie. “Then I told him I’d sell him a [decorating] bag with the right tip and the right icing so he could write those things himself.” She adds that naturally the cake wouldn’t have her handwriting expertise, but she would be devastated to release a cake via the bakery with such a hateful message fashioned by her own hands.
Table-side negotiations quickly broke down. “He told me I needed to talk to my attorney about this,” Marjorie says. Then, he left.
A few hours later, however, he was back, asking Marjorie if she’d conferred with her lawyer over the matter. She hadn’t.
“I was busy,” she says. “I have a business to run here.”
The sweet-toothed patrons in the bakery’s dining room began to take notice of the confrontational man in the lobby and again, Marjorie offered to bake him the cake and sell him the appropriate tools to complete the task himself. Though she thankfully admits their banter never devolved into yelling, she says it’s clear the man was comfortable creating a scene. He left upon request once more, still visibly upset, and Marjorie hoped that was the end of it. She says that one of her guests misheard the confrontation and thought Marjorie was refusing to bake a gay wedding cake. Exhausted, she reassured the patron that he was mistaken and that she would never do such a thing.
“We’ve done lots of gay weddings,” Marjorie — who describes herself as “half-Jewish, half-Catholic” — tells us. “I love all people!”
The third time the gentleman entered the store that day, Marjorie called for backup, asking her brother to excuse him.
“I think he was looking for trouble at that point,” Lindsay interjects, adding that it appeared he was trying to rile up the staff. “He was being really pushy and disruptive about his order.” Azucar’s customers watched the embarrassing ordeal, and again the man agreed to go.
“He said, ‘You will hear from me!’ and I got scared,” Marjorie says. “I was worried he was going to follow me — you can tell who I am in our big, pink van.”
And Marjorie did hear from the man again, but — much to her relief — it was through a letter filed with Colorado’s Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA). The letter explained that a discrimination complaint had been filed against the bakery and that she would need to respond with her account of what happened the afternoon of March 13, 2014.
Part of her reply to DORA reads:
I can … tell you that the customer wanted us to draw two males holding hands … with a big ‘X’ on them. I told him that we do not like to discriminate in this bakery, we accept all humans and that the message and drawing is extremely rude.
Lindsay provided a reply to DORA as well that confirms:
[The guest] wanted an open book with the words “god hates homosexuality” and a ‘no’ sign over two men. He also wanted a scripture and the Ghostbusters logo.
Marjorie admits to being legitimately confused as to why he chose her bakery to make the anti-gay cake, but says it could have stemmed from a pro-equality statement she gave to a Spanish-speaking outlet in the wake of the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision. In the case, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission upheld a judge’s ruling that a Lakewood bakery was guilty of discrimination when the owners refused to bake cakes for gay weddings. Ire came from far and wide and being so close to the verdict, Marjorie suspects the man might have been organizing the backlash and using her shop to stage his protest.
“Then again, he could have just seen the pink shop and all the ladies working and thought he could bully us,” she says.
A final portion of Marjorie’s reply states:
I would like to make it clear that we never refused service. We only refused to write and draw what we felt was discriminatory against gays. In the same manner we would not … make a discriminatory cake against Christians, we will not make one that discriminates against gays.
“I’m not sure if I made the right decision [legally],” Marjorie says. “But it felt right to me as a person.”

 ****

DORA has requested a final letter from Marjorie. She says they’ll make a decision 30 days from receipt and adds that they’ve been incredibly helpful and kind throughout the process. Out Front will provide updates online as the case progresses.

SCOTUS Rules 9-0 For Religious Liberty in Prison

From Legal Times blog:

A unanimous U.S Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with a Muslim inmate in Arkansas in his challenge to a prison rule that barred him from wearing a half-inch beard for religious reasons.
Justice Samuel Alito Jr., writing for the court in Holt v. Hobbs, said the policy violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, which bars substantial government restrictions on prisoners' religious practices unless they serve a compelling interest. The state said the policy was needed to keep inmates from hiding contraband or changing their appearance if they escape.
"We readily agree that the department has a compelling interest in staunching the flow of contraband into and within its facilities," Alito wrote. "But the argument that this interest would be seriously compromised by allowing an inmate to grow a 1⁄2-inch beard is hard to take seriously." Alito noted that Arkansas has no policy demanding that inmates shave their heads or wear crew cuts, a fact that undermines the state's security argument.
"This is a huge win for religious freedom and for all Americans," said Eric Rassbach of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, co-counsel for inmate Gregory Holt. "What the Supreme Court said today was that government officials cannot impose arbitrary restrictions on religious liberty just because they think government knows best."
During oral arguments last October, some justices worried that allowing a half-inch beard would encourage an endless series of future lawsuits testing inch-long beards or other variations. Alito's opinion does not appear to address that concern, and he cited the half-inch length repeatedly, stating that the decision finds the Arkansas policy a violation of RLUIPA "insofar as it prevents petitioner from growing a 1⁄2-inch beard."

Read more: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/legaltimes/id=1202715545878/Justices-Rule-for-Inmate-in-Dispute-Over-Beard-Length#ixzz3PNVWQwx9

What About a "Moment of Silence" Law?

From the Religion Clause Blog:

Court Upholds Texas Mandatory Moment of Silence Law

On Tuesday, a Texas federal district court rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to the Texas law that requires public schools to observe a moment of silence each day during which students may “reflect, pray, meditate, or engage in any other silent activity that is not likely to interfere with or distract another student.” In Croft v. Perry, (ND TX, Jan. 2, 2008), most of the court’s 36-page opinion focused on the state’s purpose in enacting the current version of the law. The court concluded: “Although it is a close question, the Court finds legitimate the secular purpose of allowing for all types of thoughtful contemplation and concludes that this purpose is supported by the legislative history and sufficient to withstand the Lemon test. The Court rejects the argument that this purpose is trivial or pretextual.” Today's Houston Chronicle and Dallas News both reported on the decision. (See prior related postings 1, 2.)

Update (via AUL):

In June 2008, we filed an amicus brief in support of the Crofts. We argued that the statute's text and legislative history reveal that the legislature's primary purpose was to advance religion, and that the state’s proffered secular purposes were shams.

In March 2009, the Fifth Circuit upheld the trial court's decision, ruling that the moment-of-silence law had a secular purpose and did not violate the Establishment Clause.

 What do you think? Did the courts get this one right?

Town of Gilbert Free Speech Case Argued Today

Here are some links (from How Appealing):

"Justices seek to balance free speech, highway clutter": Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that "U.S. justices indicate support for Arizona church in free speech case."
And at "SCOTUSblog," Lyle Denniston has a post titled "Argument analysis: If a law turns out to be 'silly' . . ."
You can access at this link the transcript of today's U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, No. 13-502.
Posted at 02:54 PM by Howard Bashman

Supreme Court Preview--Reed v. Town of Gilbert

ScotusBlog has a preview (link)

Issue: Whether the Town of Gilbert's mere assertion that its sign code lacks a discriminatory motive renders its facially content-based sign code content-neutral and justifies the code's differential treatment of petitioners' religious signs.

The oral argument is on Monday Jan. 12 (this may be one we listen to later in the semester)

Here is a link to an excellent preview of the oral argument in the case. Link.

Executive Orders

The President's role is not to enact laws, nor to repeal or amend laws already enacted, but rather to  "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Consiider this hypothetical:

A conservative Republican President has repeatedly asked a Democratic-controlled Congress to pass a law repealing the capital gains tax. The President believes this is a form of double taxation, and is therefore unfair to investors and harmful to the economy.

When Congress refuses to act, the President signs an executive order deferring enforcement of the capital gains tax and directing the IRS to issue "blue cards" to investors suspending their obligation to pay capital gains taxes.

How should we react to this use of executive orders by the President?

Lawrence and "Autonomy of Self"

Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority in Lawrence, asserts that "Liberty presumes an autonomy of self.." (p. 600).

Really? Constitutional liberty? Or philosophical liberty?

He notes that this autonomy of self includes such things as freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.

What about autonomy of self in matters of business and contract--the right of consenting adults to enter into contracts concerning employment, the right of the individual to decide whether to purchase health insurance (and what kind of policy to purchase), the right of the owner of a business to decide how to run her business, who to hire, how much to pay, whether to offer health insurance or not to the consenting adults whom she employs?

What about the autonomy to decide how to spend your own money, without government constantly taxing it away from you and giving it to others?

Lawrence is to sexual laissez faire whet Lochner was to economic laissez faire.

Just substitute "right to consensual sex" for "right of consensual contract" and the opinions are identical.

Should we go back to Lochner and use SDP to strike down the Welfare/Regulatory State?

Lawrence and Legitimate State Interests

In Lawrence, the State of Texas claimed that public morality provided a rational basis for its law forbidding homosexual anal sodomy. The Court held that "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice." (edited from this edition of casebook)


Suppose instead of relying on public morality, the State of Texas had argued that the sodomy law furthers a strong governmental interest in public health? Is public health a rational basis for upholding a law prohibiting conduct that has serious health consequences?




Consider the following link from the Center for Disease Control:



1. HIV/AIDS and Men Who have Sex With Men


Here is an excerpt from this CDC study:



"The term men who have sex with men (MSM) refers to all men who have sex with other men, regardless of how they identify themselves (gay, bisexual, or heterosexual). In the United States, HIV and AIDS have had a tremendous impact on MSM. Consider these facts:


* AIDS has been diagnosed for more than half a million MSM. Over 300,000 MSM with AIDS have died since the beginning of the epidemic.


*MSM made up more than two thirds (68%) of all men living with HIV in 2005, even though only about 5% to 7% of men in the United States reported having sex with other men....



*For complex reasons, HIV/AIDS continues to take a high toll on the MSM population. For example, the number of new HIV/AIDS cases among MSM in 2005 was 11% more than the number of cases in 2001. It is unclear whether this increase is due to more testing, which results in more diagnoses, or to an increase in the number of HIV infections. Whatever the reasons, in 2005, MSM still accounted for about 53% of all new HIV/AIDS cases and 71% of cases in male adults and adolescents.

See also CDC Basic AIDS Statistics information (good link).

Suppose Texas enacts its law prohibiting anal MSM conduct. Assuming a rational basis test applies, is the law rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in protecting public health by regulating this type of conduct?

Apart from the liberty interests involved (consenting adults right to contract vs. consenting adults engaged in sexual relationships), the majority opinions in Lochner and Lawrence are strikingly similar. Both reject public morality (social justice in the one case, and sexual morality in the other) as legitimate state interests for interfering with "liberty;" both refuse to recognize legitimate public health interests as justifications for the laws invalidated; and both reflect the ideological preferences of the "lawyer class" at the time the decisions were handed down.In Lochner, the Court seemingly enacted "Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics" as a constitutional right, and in Lawrence the Court seemingly enacted Mr. Vatsyayana's Kama Sutra as the law of the land.

Chief Justice Roberts on Politicization of the Court

Remember when CJ Roberts visited earlier this year, and he said the Court is not a political body, it is an objective body of lawyers. He blamed the Senate for politicizing the judicial confirmation process.

I hope you didn't miss Justice Scalia's views about this issue--he blames the Court (p. 591); he says when the Court interprets the Constitution based upon the ideological or political or moral preferences of the Justices, rather than upon the text and historical understanding of the Constitution, the Court brings political pressure upon itself. If the Court acts as a politcal lawmaking body, it should not complain or be surprised when it is treated as a political lawmaking body.

I think Scalia hits the nail on the head with this observation!

Class Schedule--Last Trip Nov. 5

We have 7 classes that need to be canceled because of our 60-minute classes.


I will be speaking at a number of other law schools on the Hobby Lobby decision this semester, and at least so far these are the Con Law classes I am canceling:

1. Wed. Sept. 17 (I will be speaking at U Pittsburgh Law and Duquesne Law)
2. Wed. Oct. 15 (I will be speaking at Brooklyn Law)
3. Wed. Oct. 22 (Minnesota Law)
4. Thurs. Oct. 23 (St. Thomas Law)
5. Wed. Nov. 5 (Pace Law School)

This trip to Pace is my last trip of the Semester.

By the way, I will be doing a STIR talk on Hobby Lobby here in November.

Texas New Abortion law

Recently, the state of Texas enacted a law regulating abortion. The law has a number of provisions, but I want to focus on 2 of these provisions.

First, the law requires that a physician performing or inducing an abortion "have admitting privileges...at a hospital no more than thirty miles from the location at which the abortion is performed or induced."

Second, the law prohibits "abortion at or after 20 weeks post-fertilization."

Are these laws permissible under Casey and the "undue burden" test?