More (on top of those in Part 1):
Christian Legal Society (and other Christian associations): This brief, by the law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, argues that the lower-court rulings in favor of the accommodation contradict the Supreme Court’s religious-liberty precedents and, if upheld, would have far-reaching adverse consequences for religious liberty.
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye (and other diverse minority religions): In 1993, the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye won a major Supreme Court victory against a city’s restrictions on animal sacrifice. Justice Kennedy’s opinion in that case rejected the city’s bootstrapping definition of its supposed compelling interest—a bootstrapping of the same type that the government uses to try to justify the so-called accommodation. This brief by Baker Botts argues that the errors made by the courts that have upheld the accommodation would undermine RFRA’s protections for everyone.
Orthodox Jewish Rabbis: This brief explains that the mistaken interpretation of RFRA advanced by the government—which asks courts to judge whether a law requires a religious person to violate his faith in a significant manner—would be especially damaging to minority religious adherents.
Women Speak for Themselves: Law professor Helen Alvaré argues, that far from promoting a compelling governmental interest, the HHS mandate proposes a reductionist and harmful understanding of women’s freedom and rests on unsupported and erroneous assumptions.
(Still a few more to come.)