Goldman v. Weinberger

Last updated
Goldman v. Weinberger
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued January 14, 1986
Decided March 25, 1986
Full case nameS. Simcha Goldman v. Weinberger, Secretary of Defense, et al.
Citations475 U.S. 503 ( more )
106 S. Ct. 1310; 89 L. Ed. 2d 478; 1986 U.S. LEXIS 34; 54 U.S.L.W. 4298; 40 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 543; 39 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 35,947
Holding
The Free Exercise Clause does not protect religious apparel from military uniform regulations.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
MajorityRehnquist, joined by Burger, White, Powell, Stevens
ConcurrenceStevens, joined by White, Powell
DissentBrennan, joined by Marshall
DissentBlackmun
DissentO'Connor, joined by Marshall
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I
Superseded by
National Defense Authorization Act of 1988

Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a Jewish Air Force officer was denied the right to wear a yarmulke when in uniform on the grounds that the Free Exercise Clause applies less strictly to the military than to ordinary citizens.

Contents

Background

Goldman joined the United States Air Force as an inactive reservist in 1973. He received a Health Professions scholarship to work towards a PhD in Psychology at the Loyola University of Chicago. Subsequently, Goldman entered service at March Air Force Base in Riverside, California as a commissioned officer and clinical psychologist at the on-base mental health clinic. As an Orthodox Jew and rabbi, Goldman's faith required him to wear a yarmulke to show that he is aware that God is a higher power and above him.

For years, Goldman wore his yarmulke without controversy by staying near his station at the clinic and wearing his service cap above the yarmulke while outdoors. In 1981, however, he was required to testify as a defense witness at a court-martial. His testimony discredited the prosecution witness. Subsequently, a government attorney lodged a complaint about Goldman's wearing of the yarmulke. Subsequently, his commanding officer at the hospital, Colonel Joseph Gregory, informed him that he was violating Air Force Regulation 35-10, which states that "headgear will not be worn... while indoors except by armed security police in the performance of their duties." The officer then ordered him to not wear the yarmulke while in uniform outside the hospital.

Goldman refused this order, and instead his attorney filed a complaint to the Air Force General Counsel. Gregory then ordered that Goldman cease wearing his yarmulke even when within the hospital. Goldman requested to be allowed to report for duty in civilian clothes until the issue was settled in court, but he was denied this and was threatened with court-martial. It was at this point that Goldman sued the Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, who was himself of Jewish descent, for Free Exercise Clause violations. He was favored at the District Court of Washington, D.C., but that decision was reversed in the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari.

Supreme Court decision

Because Goldman alleged that this was a Free Exercise violation, he indicated that the defense had to pass the Sherbert test: by demonstrating a "compelling interest" for the violation. He then submitted evidence that there was not a compelling interest for preventing the display of religious apparel, because it presented no danger to military discipline. However, the Court decided against him on a 5–4 decision. The majority opinion, written by Rehnquist, held that this was of no consequence—it contended that the Sherbert test did not apply because the Free Exercise Clause and even the First Amendment in general did not apply to the military in the same way that it did to civilian society. The justification for this was a need to "foster instinctive obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps." The dissenters argued that the decision gave too much deference to the military's judgment and that some judicial scrutiny of military necessity claims should be required. [1]

Congressional response

In the Court's ruling it was only decided that the Constitution failed to protect the freedom to wear religious apparel in uniform—it did not outright bar it. This distinction gave Congress the power to enact legislation that would reverse the policy. Allowing "neat and conservative" religious apparel accommodations had been in consideration since 1985, following the case's ruling in the Court of Appeals. [2] Proposals to do so failed during the case's trial period, but finally succeeded in 1988 through a provision to the annual National Defense Authorization Act. It provides for a general rule that "a member of the armed forces may wear an item of religious apparel while wearing the uniform of the member's armed force." The bill containing the provision was passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Military police</span> Police organization part of the military of a state

Military police (MP) are law enforcement agencies connected with, or part of, the military of a state. In wartime operations, the military police may support the main fighting force with force protection, convoy security, screening, rear reconnaissance, logistic traffic management, counterinsurgency, and detainee handling.

<i>Bundeswehr</i> Combined military forces of Germany

The Bundeswehr is the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Germany. The Bundeswehr is divided into a military part and a civil part, the military part consisting of the German Army, the German Navy, the German Air Force, the Joint Support Service, the Joint Medical Service, and the Cyber and Information Domain Service.

<i>Kippah</i> Skullcap traditionally worn by Jewish men to cover the head

A kippah, yarmulke, skullcap, or koppel is a brimless cap, usually made of cloth, traditionally worn by Jewish males to fulfill the customary requirement that the head be covered. It is worn by all men in Orthodox Jewish communities during prayers and by most Orthodox Jewish men at all other times. Among non-Orthodox Jewish communities, some who wear them do so at all times, while others wear them only during prayer, while attending a synagogue, or in other rituals. Women may also wear them in those communities.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is the foundation of the system of military justice of the armed forces of the United States. The UCMJ was established by the United States Congress in accordance with their constitutional authority, per Article I, Section 8, which provides that "The Congress shall have Power. .. to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces" of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Religious Freedom Restoration Act</span> 1993 United States Law

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4, is a 1993 United States federal law that "ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected." The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Ted Kennedy (D-MA) the same day. A unanimous U.S. House and a nearly unanimous U.S. Senate—three senators voted against passage—passed the bill, and President Bill Clinton signed it into law.

The Free Exercise Clause accompanies the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Black beret</span> Military cap, worn by armored forces and other units

The black beret is a type of headgear. It is commonly worn by paramilitaries and militaries around the world, particularly armored forces such as the British Army's Royal Tank Regiment (RTR), the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps (RCAC), and Royal Australian Armoured Corps (RAAC) and the Indian Army Armoured Corps. Notable non-armored military units to wear the black beret include the non-military police and non-special forces elements of the Irish Defence Forces, MOD Guard Service, Russian Naval Infantry and Russian OMON units, the United States Air Force (USAF) Tactical Air Control Party (TACP), Philippine National Police-Special Action Force (PNP-SAF) members, and the Royal Canadian Navy. It was also worn by the United Kingdom's Royal Observer Corps (ROC) with their Royal Air Force (RAF) uniform, Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Military chaplain</span> Ministers to military personnel

A military chaplain ministers to military personnel and, in most cases, their families and civilians working for the military. In some cases they will also work with local civilians within a military area of operations.

<i>Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Newark</i>

Fraternal Order of Police, Newark Lodge No. 12 v. City of Newark, 170 F.3d 359, was a case challenging an internal order of the City of Newark Police Department requiring its officers to be clean-shaven. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that the order merited strict scrutiny and did not survive exacting review. Therefore, the order violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment required the government to demonstrate both a compelling interest and that the law in question was narrowly tailored before it denied unemployment compensation to someone who was fired because her job requirements substantially conflicted with her religion.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation ('MRFF) is an American watchdog group and advocacy organization founded in 2005 by Michael L. "Mikey" Weinstein. The group's goal states it will, "Ensure that members of the United States Armed Forces receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Department of Defense police</span>

United States Department of Defense Police are the uniformed civilian police officers of the United States Department of Defense, various branches of the United States Armed Forces, or specific DoD activities.

Schacht v. United States, 398 U.S. 58 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court case, which ruled that actors could wear accurate military uniforms—regardless of the production's portrayal of the military—on First Amendment grounds.

Sikhs and Sikh Americans have served in the United States military since World War I through all subsequent wars. Since the 1980s, observant Sikhs have faced difficulty in serving due to a discontinuation of exemptions to uniform standards which previously allowed Sikhs to maintain their religiously-mandated beards and turbans while in uniform.

Religion and business have throughout history interacted in ways that relate to and affected one another, as well as influenced sociocultural evolution, political geographies, and labour laws. As businesses expand globally they seek new markets which leads to expanding their corporation's norms and rules to encompass the new locations norms which most often involve religious rules and terms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Religious symbolism in the United States military</span> Aspect of military life

Religious symbolism in the United States military includes the use of religious symbols for military chaplain insignia, uniforms, emblems, flags, and chapels; symbolic gestures, actions, and words used in military rituals and ceremonies; and religious symbols or designations used in areas such as headstones and markers in national cemeteries, and military ID tags.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Department of the Air Force Police</span> Civilian uniformed police service of the United States Air Force

The United States Department of the Air Force Police are the civilian uniformed police service of the United States Department of the Air Force, responsible for the force protection of assets and all aspects of law enforcement on U.S. Air Force and U.S. Space Force installations, and other facilities operated by Air Force and Space Force.

The Judge Advocate General's Corps, also known as JAG or JAG Corps, is the military justice branch or specialty of the United States Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps and Navy. Officers serving in the JAG Corps are typically called judge advocates.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States military chaplains</span>

United States military chaplains hold positions in the armed forces of the United States and are charged with conducting religious services and providing counseling for their adherents. As of 2011, there are about 2,900 chaplains in the Army, among the active duty, reserve, and National Guard components.

The Lawyers Military Defense Committee (LMDC) was a non-profit legal organization founded in 1970 by a group concerned that military members serving in Vietnam were unable to exercise their right to civilian counsel in courts-martial. LMDC existed for six years (1970–76) – two years in the combat zone of Vietnam, and for four years amidst disciplinary clashes inside US military forces in West Germany. During this period high caliber civilian representation and counseling by a cohort of young attorneys were provided free of charge country-wide, in often challenging and controversial cases for hundreds of service members, including scores of trial and post-trial proceedings. Initial logistical obstacles in Vietnam were ultimately resolved satisfactorily, so that communications with clients, other counsel, and the court could be accomplished pursuant to newly issued U.S. Army regulations, as were needs for access to military transport, billeting, and research facilities. In almost every instance representation by LMDC lawyers was welcomed by assigned military counsel. LMDC's operations in a war zone were unique. No undertaking of its kind has appeared in subsequent US conflicts.

References

  1. Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986).
  2. Sullivan, Dwight H. (1988), "The Congressional Response to Goldman v. Weinberg". Military Law Review, Volume 121, pp. 125–152.