Goldman v. Weinberger

Supreme Court of United States
475 U.S. 503 (1986)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require the military to accommodate religiously motivated practices, such as wearing religious headgear, when those practices conflict with a reasonable and evenhandedly applied uniform regulation designed to promote military discipline, unity, and esprit de corps.

Facts:

S. Simcha Goldman was an Orthodox Jew, an ordained rabbi, and a commissioned officer in the United States Air Force serving as a clinical psychologist.
For several years, Goldman wore a yarmulke while in uniform on duty at March Air Force Base without any objections.
In April 1981, after Goldman testified as a witness at a court-martial while wearing his yarmulke, opposing counsel complained to the Hospital Commander, Colonel Joseph Gregory.
Colonel Gregory informed Goldman that wearing the yarmulke indoors violated Air Force Regulation (AFR) 35-10, which prohibits wearing headgear indoors.
Colonel Gregory ordered Goldman to stop wearing the yarmulke while in uniform.
When Goldman refused to comply, he received a formal letter of reprimand, was warned of a possible court-martial, and Colonel Gregory withdrew a positive recommendation for Goldman's service extension, substituting it with a negative one.

Procedural Posture:

S. Simcha Goldman sued the Secretary of Defense in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking to enjoin the Air Force from enforcing the regulation against him.
The District Court, a court of first instance, granted a permanent injunction in favor of Goldman.
The Secretary of Defense appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, an intermediate appellate court.
The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision, finding the Air Force's interest in uniformity justified the regulation.
The Supreme Court of the United States granted Goldman's petition for a writ of certiorari.

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 an Air Force regulation that prohibits on-duty personnel from wearing headgear indoors, thereby preventing an Orthodox Jewish officer from wearing a yarmulke as required by his faith, violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Rehnquist

No. The Air Force regulation does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. The Court's review of military regulations challenged on First Amendment grounds is far more deferential than its review of similar laws affecting civilian society. The military is a specialized community where the subordination of individual preferences is necessary to foster instinctive obedience, unity, and esprit de corps. The professional judgment of the Air Force is that standardized uniforms are essential to this mission, and courts are ill-equipped to second-guess that judgment. The regulation is a reasonable and evenhanded method to promote the legitimate military interest in uniformity, and the First Amendment does not require an exception for Goldman's religious practice.

Concurring - Justice Stevens

No. The regulation is valid because it serves the crucial interest of uniform treatment for members of all religious faiths. While Goldman's case is sympathetic, creating an exception for a familiar religious symbol like a yarmulke would require the Air Force and courts to make subjective judgments about other, less familiar religious practices, such as a Sikh's turban or a Rastafarian's dreadlocks. A neutral, completely objective standard based on visibility avoids forcing the military into the business of evaluating the relative merits of different religious claims, thereby ensuring all faiths are treated equally under the rule.

Dissenting - Justice Brennan

Yes. The regulation as applied to Goldman violates the Free Exercise Clause. The Court abdicates its constitutional role by offering 'credulous deference to unsupported assertions of military necessity.' The Air Force's claim that a small, unobtrusive yarmulke would undermine discipline 'surpasses belief' and is contradicted by its own regulations, which do not require absolute uniformity and permit other expressions of individuality like rings. The government failed to provide any credible explanation of how Goldman's yarmulke would interfere with military interests, and the Court should not accept mere 'ipse dixit' (an unsupported assertion) to override a fundamental constitutional right.

Dissenting - Justice Blackmun

Yes. The regulation as applied to Goldman violates the Free Exercise Clause. The Air Force has failed to produce even a 'minimally credible explanation' for refusing Goldman's request. Goldman wore the yarmulke for years without any adverse effect on his performance or military discipline. While the military's concern about a 'slippery slope' of requests is theoretically valid, it is empirically unsupported in this case. The government has not shown any reason to fear a significant number of exemption requests that would impair the military's image or function.

Dissenting - Justice O'Connor

Yes. The regulation as applied to Goldman violates the Free Exercise Clause. The Court fails to articulate or apply any meaningful standard of review. The proper analysis requires a two-part test: (1) Is the government's interest of unusual importance? and (2) Will granting the exemption cause substantial harm to that interest? Here, while military discipline is an unusually important interest, the government presented no convincing proof that granting Goldman an exemption to wear his yarmulke in a hospital setting would cause substantial harm to discipline or esprit de corps. The government's need for uniformity must yield where its assertion of a threat is completely unfounded.

Analysis:

This decision established a standard of extreme judicial deference to military regulations, even when they infringe upon fundamental First Amendment rights. The Court effectively created a separate, less-protective constitutional standard for service members, prioritizing the military's judgment on uniformity and discipline over individual free exercise claims. The ruling was highly controversial and led to a direct legislative response from Congress, which passed Section 508 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1988, permitting service members to wear neat and conservative religious apparel that does not interfere with military duties, thereby legislatively overturning the specific outcome of this case.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Goldman v. Weinberger (1986)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"