Goldman v. Weinberger 1986

Petitioner: S. Simcha Goldman

Respondent: Caspar W. Weinberger, U.S. Secretary of Defense, et al.

Petitioner's Claim: That Air Force regulations preventing him from wearing a yarmulke while on duty violated his First Amendment religious freedom.

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 the Court), John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White

Justices Dissenting: Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor

Date of Decision: March 25, 1986

Decision: The Supreme Court said the Air Force regulations did not violate the Constitution.

Significance: Goldman allows the military to sacrifice religious freedom for uniformity to maintain discipline and morale.

S. Simcha Goldman was an Orthodox Jew and an ordained rabbi. In 1973, Goldman joined the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program. The program gave him financial support to study psychology for three years at Loyola University in Chicago, Illinois.

After getting a Ph.D. in 1976, Goldman became a commissioned officer in the U.S. Air Force. He served as a clinical psychologist at the mental health hospital at March Air Force Base in Riverside, California. From 1976 to 1981, Goldman's performance was praiseworthy.

Religious devotion

As an Orthodox Jew, Goldman wore the yarmulke required by his religion. A yarmulke is a skullcap that covers the top of the wearer's head in God's presence. It serves as a reminder to serve God at all times.

Air Force regulation 35-10 made it unlawful for officers to wear headgear indoors. Goldman, however, wore his yarmulke in the hospital without any problems from 1976 to 1981. In April 1981, Goldman testified at a court-martial hearing while wearing his yarmulke. Afterwards a court lawyer complained to Colonel Joseph Gregory, Goldman's commanding officer, that Goldman's yarmulke violated Air Force regulations in the courtroom and in the hospital.

Colonel Gregory told Goldman about the violation and ordered him to refrain from wearing the yarmulke everywhere except in the hospital. When Goldman's lawyer protested to the Air Force General Counsel, Colonel Gregory revised the order to prohibit Goldman from wearing the yarmulke even in the hospital.

Goldman requested permission to wear civilian clothes, including his yarmulke, until the dispute was resolved. The Air Force denied his request. The next day Goldman received a letter of reprimand and a warning that further violations of regulation 35-10 could result in a court-martial. Colonel Gregory also withdrew a recommendation to extend Goldman's active service and submitted a negative recommendation instead.

Goldman sues

Goldman filed a lawsuit against Caspar Weinberger, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, and other government and military officials. Goldman said regulation 35-10 violated his religious freedom under the First Amendment. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. It prevents the government from interfering with religious belief and activity unless it has a compelling (very strong) reason for doing so.

After a full hearing, the federal court in the District of Columbia ruled in favor of Goldman. The court of appeals, however, reversed. It said the regulation was permissible to serve the military's interest in uniformity. By requiring everyone to wear similar uniforms, the military discourages individualism and builds a uniform, disciplined military. Faced with having to violate his religion while serving his country, Goldman took his case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Military uniformity

With a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Weinberger and the Air Force. Justice William H. Rehnquist delivered the Court's opinion. Rehnquist said military personnel do not give up all constitutional rights. The military, however, must foster discipline, obedience, and unity. That is the only way to make sure personnel will follow orders without hesitation in times of war.

To foster unity, Air Force regulations require personnel to wear standard uniforms. Those regulations make it unlawful to wear religious headgear. Exceptions for yarmulkes would foster individualism, not unity. Justice Rehnquist said Goldman's religious freedom was not more important than the military's need to develop unity.

Rehnquist noted that Air Force regulations did not prohibit all religious clothing. Goldman could wear his yarmulke during indoor religious ceremonies. Commanding officers were allowed to permit officers to wear religious headgear in their living quarters. Commanding officers also could allow officers to wear nonvisible religious clothing of any kind. Air Force regulation 35-10, however, served the military goal of uniformity by forcing officers on duty to wear the standard Air Force uniform. That did not violate religious freedom under the First Amendment.

CHAPLAIN FIRST AMENDMENT CASE

In the summer of 1996, the Roman Catholic Church launched the "Project Life Postcard Campaign." The Church's goal was to defeat President William J. Clinton's veto of a bill that would have banned certain abortions. The Church asked its priests to urge parishioners to send postcards to Congressmen asking them to override the veto.

Father Vincent J. Rigdon was a Roman Catholic priest and lieutenant colonel in the Air Force Reserve who preached at Andrews Air Force base in Washington, D.C. In response to the Church's campaign, the military ordered Rigdon and all other chaplains not to participate in the postcard campaign. The military said the campaign violated rules that prevent military personnel from lobbying for or against legislation in Congress.

Rigdon sued the armed forces to challenge the order. He said it violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and religion. A Catholic officer, an Air Force rabbi, and the Muslim American Military Association joined Rigdon in his lawsuit. They feared the order would prevent chaplains from discussing important issues during sermons, counseling, and confessions.

The military said the order did not prevent chaplains from discussing moral issues during sermons and religious teaching. On 7 April 1997, however, the federal district court ruled against the military and in favor of Rigdon and his fellow chaplains. The court said chaplains are allowed to urge congregants to write letters to Congress on important moral issues. The court said, "There is no need for [the government's] heavy handed censorship."

Irrational military rationale

Four justices dissented, which means they disagreed with the Court's decision. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., wrote a dissenting opinion. Brennan said the government needs a compelling reason to interfere with religious freedom. Here Brennan said the government could not even offer a good reason. There was no evidence that Goldman would hurt military discipline by wearing a yarmulke.

There also was no evidence that the military needed to maintain absolute uniformity in dress. In fact, Air Force regulations said, "Neither the Air Force nor the public expects absolute uniformity of appearance. Each member has the right, within limits, to express individuality through his or her appearance. However, the image of a disciplined service member who can be relied on to do his or her job excludes the extreme, the unusual, and the fad." Brennan said there was nothing extreme, unusual, or faddish about wearing a yarmulke. By prohibiting yarmulkes, the military and the Supreme Court forced American Orthodox Jews to choose between obeying their religion and serving their country.

Suggestions for further reading

Adde, Nick. "Chaplains Launch Free Speech Suit." Navy Times, November 4, 1996.

"Chaplains Can't Be Muzzled." Navy Times, May 5, 1997.

Evans, J. Edward. Freedom of Religion. Minneapolis: Lerner Publications Company, 1990.

Farish, Leah. The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Religion, and the Press. Enslow Publishers, Inc., 1998.

Gay, Kathlyn. Church and State: Government and Religion in the United States. Brookfield: Millbrook Press, 1992.

Hirst, Mike. Freedom of Belief. New York: Franklin Watts, 1997.

Jolkovsky, Binyamin L. "Military Bans Pulpit Politicking." Christian Science Monitor, October 16, 1996.

Klinker, Philip A. The First Amendment. Englewood Cliffs: Silver Burdett Press, 1991.

"Military Chaplains Plumb Church-State Tar Pit." National Catholic Reporter, October 18, 1996.

"Military Chaplains Win Speech Case." Christianity Today, June 16, 1997.

Sherrow, Victoria. Freedom of Worship. Brookfield: Millbrook Press, 1997.