Yet more (on top of those in Part 1 and Part 2):

Eternal Word Television Network: This brief cogently explains that the accommodation, rather than eliminating EWTN’s moral complicity, would merely provide EWTN “a more complicated way of violating its conscience.” Further:

For a Catholic organization like EWTN, it is ironic that its conscience hinges on its inability to sign a piece of paper. The best known Catholic martyr for conscience, St. Thomas More, “went to the scaffold rather than sign a little paper for the King.” ETBU II, 807 F.3d at 635 (Jones, J., dissenting). Admittedly, the penalties for not signing the Oath of Supremacy were more stringent than those for not signing Form 700. See Treason Act, 1351, 25 Edw. 3 Stat. 5 (Eng.) (prescribing hanging, drawing, and quartering). But the risk of signing—that is, the risk to one’s conscience of doing what one knows to be wrong—is the same. EWTN therefore cannot sign.

Knights of Columbus: Discussing how the accommodation does not sensibly serve any compelling governmental interest (and is not the least restrictive means of doing so), this brief shows, among other things, the bizarre implications of the government’s odd decision to base its exemption from the mandate (as opposed to the accommodation) on an obscure provision of the tax code that was designed for a purpose unrelated to religious liberty.

Dominican Sisters of Mary: As Carrie Severino has noted, the brief that she and the Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman firm filed explains that the government created the odd exemption that it did as part of a discriminatory gerrymander, and that the government’s lack of seriousness is shown by its failure to instead model its exemption on the longstanding religious exemption under Title VII.

Catholic Theologians and Ethicists: This brief provides a clear and deep account of Catholic teaching on moral complicity.