- Gorod formatted v112118 _post filp inputs_ _post post_

265 F. Supp. 2d at 710. 12. Henderson, 407 F.3d at 356. In addition, the court of appeals distinguished between taxes and fees on the basis of a

Disestablishment at Work

necessities.” Id. at 710 (quoting Otten v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 205 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1953)). In her concurring opinion, Justice O’Connor

- Langhofer

171 (Mass. 1993); People v. Williams, 616 N.W.2d 710, 712 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000); McKenzie v. LANGHOFER 4/24/2006 2:11:17 PM the yale law journal 115

- ChoeFINAL

conduct falls outside the Sherman Act. See, e.g., Dedication & Everlasting Love to Animals v. Humane Soc’y of the United States, Inc., 50 F.3d 710, 714

for which they would receive political credit.” Super, supra note 10, at 2557-58 n.54; see also Super, supra note 73, at 710-11. Super’s point is

Banking and Antitrust

Lina M. Khan, Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox, 126 Yale L.J. 710, 794-96 (2017) (discussing the U.S. bank holding company regulation as a potential model for

- Pope_Press_v1web

their employer). 47. Huppert v. City of Pittsburg, 574 F.3d 696, 710 (9th Cir. 2009). But see Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 440 (Souter, J., dissenting

Forum: Reconstructing RFRA: The Contested Legacy of Religious Freedom Restoration

Indiana Employment Security Division, 450 U.S. 707, 710-12 (1981). NeJaime & Siegel, supra note 21, at 2575 n.243 (“Business owners with religious

- Lederman Macroed for PDF

”); United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 255 & n.3 (1982); Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division, 450 U.S. 707, 710-12 (1981). 32