The New York Times: I know that I should say something about the backlash and debate over Indiana’s version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but it’s been hard to come up with something that I didn’t already say in my column when it was Arizona’s variation on the same law, vetoed under pressure, that was in the news. That column made the case that the only remaining question in the same-sex marriage “debate” was what kind of space, if any, an ascendant cultural liberalism would leave to Americans with traditional views on what constitutes a marriage; that the correlation of forces (corporate now as well as cultural and legal) was such that the choice of exactly how far to push and how much pluralism to permit would be almost entirely in the hands of liberals and supporters of same-sex marriage.
The Wall Street Journal (Access via Google): Last week I signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, known as RFRA, which ensures that Indiana law will respect religious freedom and apply the highest level of scrutiny to any state or local governmental action that infringes on people’s religious liberty. Unfortunately, the law has stirred a controversy and in recent days has been grossly misconstrued as a “license to discriminate.”
National Law Journal (Access via Google): The U.S. Supreme Court rarely offers practice pointers to the advocates who appear before it. But it did just that on March 23, when it admonished members of the Supreme Court bar to use “plain terms” when they write briefs.