Goldman v. Weinberger

Petitioner
S. Simcha Goldman
Respondent
Caspar W. Weinberger, U.S. Secretary of Defense, et al.
Petitioner's Claim
That the U.S. Air Force regulations on uniform dress preventing petitioner from wearing a yarmulke while on duty violate his First Amendment right to freeexercise of religion, and that the Supreme Court reverse the U.S. Court of Appeals prior ruling that strict enforcement of Air Force regulations is permissible.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Nathan Lewis
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Kathryn A. Oberly
Justices for the Court
Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist (writing for theCourt), John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
25 March 1986
Decision
Upheld the lower court's ruling that the First Amendment does not require theU.S. Air Force to allow an Orthodox Jew to wear a yarmulke, which violates uniform regulations, while on duty.
Significance
The ruling affirmed that, because the military's interest in uniformity of dress is necessary for the strict obedience, unity, commitment, and morale required by the armed forces, the First Amendment's protection of free exercise of religion does not require the military to accommodate personnel whose religious beliefs require them to violate uniform regulations.
Although the First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion, religious beliefs sometimes conflict state interests, including a person's militaryduty. The Supreme Court has never held that a person has a constitutional right to be exempted from military service because of religious convictions, though it has upheld that statutory right. But even in rulings that have embraced a broad interpretation of religion, the Court has not said that the FirstAmendment protections outweigh the military's significant interest in maintaining a force ready and fit for the country's defense.
S. Simcha Goldman, an Orthodox Jew and ordained rabbi, joined the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program in 1973. This program provided him with financial support while he obtained his doctorate in psychology at LoyolaUniversity. After completing his degree, Goldman was required to serve one year of active duty for each year of his subsidized study. He became a commissioned officer in the U.S. Air Force, serving as a clinical psychologist at the mental health clinic at March Air Force Base in Riverside, California.
For some years Goldman wore his yarmulke, a skullcap required of Orthodox Jewish men, while on duty. Air Force uniform regulation (AFR) 35-10, however, states that "[h]eadgear will not be worn . . . [w]hile indoors except by armedsecurity police in the performance of their duties." In 1981, when Goldman testified as a witness at a court-martial wearing his yarmulke, the opposing counsel complained to Hospital Commander Col. Joseph Gregory that the yarmulkewas in violation of the uniform code. Col. Gregory then ordered Goldman not to wear his yarmulke outside the hospital. Goldman refused. Gregory then ordered Goldman not to wear his yarmulke even in the hospital, and warned him thatfailure to obey AFR 35-10 could result in a court-martial. Col. Gregory alsowithdrew a recommendation that Goldman's application to extend active service be approved.
Goldman then sued the secretary of defense on the grounds that AFR 35-10 violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, since wearing ayarmulke is required by Orthodox belief. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an injunction barring the Air Force from prohibitingGoldman from wearing his yarmulke. The secretary of defense appealed, and theappellate court reversed the earlier decision. The Supreme Court agreed to review the matter because of its importance.
The Government's Interest In Defense
In its analysis, the Supreme Court considered two issues: whether AFR 35-10 interfered with Goldman's ability to practice his sincerely held religious beliefs, and whether the U.S. Air Force's interest in uniform regulations justified its imposing its strict dress code on those for whom religious belief requires exemption. The Court found that AFR 35-10 did clearly impose a burden on Goldman's ability to perform his religious duties. But the Court determinedthat the military's interest in discipline is important enough to outweigh this burden.
Justice Rehnquist, writing for the majority, noted that" the military is, bynecessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society" and "need not encourage debate or tolerate protest to the extent that such tolerance is required of the civilian state by the First Amendment." The Court also noted that it must give great deference to the professional opinion of military authorities when judging a matter of military interest. U.S. Air Force authorities claimed that uniform regulations were necessary to create discipline, subordination, and a sense of unity essential to its military mission. The Court accepted this claim, and ruled that the Air Force was not required to allow Goldman to wear his yarmulke while on duty.
In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Stevens, joined by Justice White and Justice Powell, noted that the military's interest in uniform dress must beapplied equally to members of all religions. Though a yarmulke is relativelyunobtrusive, Justice Stevens pointed out other visible marks of religion such as dreadlocks for a Rastafarian or turbans for Sihks are obtrusive; if yarmulkes were excepted from military regulations, these would also have to be excepted. Yet dreadlocks and turbans can be considered "so extreme, so unusual,or so faddish an image that public confidence in his ability to perform hisduties will be destroyed." Because the U.S. Air Force must not distinguish between religions in its enforcement of uniform regulations, Justice Stevens argued, yarmulkes should not be permitted.
A Passionate Dissent
Four justices, however, dissented. Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, wrote that, in finding against Goldman, the Court "abdicate[d] its role asprincipal expositor of the Constitution and protector of individual liberties in favor of credulous deference to unsupported assertions of military necessity." Justice Brennan chastised the Court for accepting the view of militaryauthorities without question. The contention that the wearing of a yarmulkeundermined the Air Force's discipline "surpasse[d] belief," Brennan wrote. The Air Force, in his view, "failed utterly" to show that excepting yarmulkes from its dress code would interfere with its interest in discipline. Noting that it was particularly important for the military to be sensitive to the requirements of minority religions, Justice Brennan concluded that banning yarmulkes "is unworthy of our military because it is unnecessary."
Justice Blackmun also dissented for a different reason. He argued that therewas no reason to believe that the interests of the U.S. Air Force would be harmed by allowing Orthodox Jews to wear yarmulkes while on duty, or by allowing other similar religious exceptions. Justices O'Connor and Marshall added that since the Air Force had not plausibly justified the need for its rigid enforcement of its dress code, the individual's assertion of the First Amendmentright to free exercise of religion must prevail over the military's uniformpolicy.
Impact
The Goldman decision was consistent with the Supreme Court's history of balancing First Amendment rights against the government's interests. The Court has defended individual rights to the free exercise of religion and has accepted increasingly broad and tolerant views on religious diversity, but hasstopped short of finding that religious beliefs are universally more important than legitimate government interests in matters such as defense, public safety, or public health. However, in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City ofHialeah (1993), the Court ruled that members of the Santeria religion were permitted under the First Amendment to violate public health laws by the ritual slaughter of animals in their religious ceremonies. The Court found that this was an instance in which the First Amendment right to free exercise ofreligion outweighed a compelling state interest..
Related Cases

• Goldman v. Secretary of Defense, 530 F.Supp. 12 (1981).
  
• Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520(1993).