|
|
Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986)
Goldman v. Weinberger No. 84-1097 Argued January 14, 1986 Decided March 25, 1986 475 U.S. 503
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Petitioner, an Orthodox Jew and ordained rabbi, was ordered not to wear a yarmulke while on duty and in uniform as a commissioned officer in the Air Force at March Air Force Base, pursuant to an Air Force regulation that provides that authorized headgear may be worn out of doors but that indoors "[h]eadgear [may] not be worn . . . except by armed security police in the performance of their duties." Petitioner then brought an action in Federal District Court, claiming that the application of the regulation to prevent him from wearing his yarmulke infringed upon his First Amendment freedom to exercise his religious beliefs. The District Court permanently enjoined the Air Force from enforcing the regulation against petitioner. The Court of Appeals reversed.
Held: The First Amendment does not prohibit the challenged regulation from being applied to petitioner, even though its effect is to restrict the wearing of the headgear required by his religious beliefs. That Amendment does not require the military to accommodate such practices as wearing a yarmulke in the face of its view that they would detract from the uniformity sought by dress regulations. Here, the Air Force has drawn the line essentially between religious apparel that is visible and that which is not, and the challenged regulation reasonably and evenhandedly regulates dress in the interest of the military’s perceived need for uniformity. Pp. 506-510.
236 U.S.App.D.C. 248, 734 F.2d 1531, affirmed.
REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ joined. STEVENS, J filed a concurring opinion, in which WHITE and POWELL, JJ., joined, post, p. 510. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 513. BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 524. O’CONNOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 528.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986) in 475 U.S. 503 475 U.S. 504. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=3AS8FSX5HNB66GK.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986), in 475 U.S. 503, page 475 U.S. 504. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=3AS8FSX5HNB66GK.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986). cited in 1986, 475 U.S. 503, pp.475 U.S. 504. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=3AS8FSX5HNB66GK.
|