Goldman v. Weinberger

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 determined that the military's interest in discipline is important enough to outweigh this burden.

Justice Rehnquist, writing for the majority, noted that" the military is, by necessity, 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 be applied equally to members of all religions. Though a yarmulke is relatively unobtrusive, 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 his duties 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.