Betty Ann Ferguson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
921 F.2d 588 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court must accommodate a witness's sincere religious objections to taking a standard oath or affirmation by permitting an alternative solemn declaration that impresses upon the witness the duty to tell the truth, as required by the flexible standard of Federal Rule of Evidence 603 and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Facts:
- Betty Ann Ferguson was a litigant in the U.S. Tax Court.
- During a hearing, Ferguson was required to give testimony to present her case.
- Citing Biblical passages, Ferguson objected to taking an oath or affirmation, stating she held a sincere religious belief that using the words 'swear' or 'affirm' was forbidden.
- Ferguson offered to make an alternative declaration to the court, stating: 'I, [Betty Ann Ferguson], do hereby declare that the facts I am about to give are, to the best of my knowledge and belief, accurate, correct, and complete.'
- The Tax Court judge refused to consider Ferguson's proposed alternative.
- The judge commented that he did not believe her objection was based on any 'recognizable religious scruple.'
- When Ferguson maintained her refusal to use the words 'swear' or 'affirm', the judge prohibited her from testifying.
Procedural Posture:
- Betty Ann Ferguson filed a petition in the U.S. Tax Court, the court of first instance.
- At a hearing, the Tax Court judge dismissed Ferguson's petition for lack of prosecution after she refused to take a standard oath or affirmation prior to testifying.
- Ferguson, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and Federal Rule of Evidence 603 by dismissing a litigant's case for lack of prosecution after she, based on sincere religious beliefs, refuses to use the words 'swear' or 'affirm' and the court rejects her proposed alternative declaration of truthfulness?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A trial court violates both the Free Exercise Clause and Federal Rule of Evidence 603 by conditioning a witness's right to testify on their violation of a sincere religious belief. Federal Rule of Evidence 603 is intentionally flexible and requires only that a witness make a declaration in a form 'calculated to awaken the witness’ conscience and impress the witness’ mind with the duty' to testify truthfully; no specific verbal formula is required. The trial judge erred first by improperly evaluating the legitimacy of Ferguson's religious belief, as courts may not assess religious truth, only sincerity. Second, the judge erred by refusing to accommodate her belief and consider her proposed alternative, which would have satisfied the rule's purpose. This failure to accommodate, particularly for a pro se litigant, was an abuse of discretion.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that judicial administration must bend to accommodate fundamental constitutional rights like the free exercise of religion. It clarifies that Federal Rule of Evidence 603 prioritizes the substance of a witness's commitment to truthfulness over the specific form of the oath or affirmation. The ruling serves as a direct instruction to trial judges to be flexible and proactive in finding alternatives for witnesses with sincere religious or conscientious objections, rather than dismissing their beliefs as unrecognizable. This precedent significantly strengthens protections for individuals whose beliefs fall outside of mainstream norms, ensuring their access to the courts is not conditioned on violating their conscience.
Unlock the full brief for Betty Ann Ferguson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue