Allen v. English is a case that evaluates an individual's rights being violated, mainly the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Yvonne Allen is a devout Christian women living in Auburn, Alabama. As part of her religious belief, Yvonne Allen covers her hair with a headscarf citing verses in the Bible such as 1 Corinthians 11 which commands her to show submission to God by covering her hair in public, and to remove her headscarf is to be disobedient to God. In 2015, Allen went to the Lee County driver license office to renew her expired license. As she was preparing to take her picture, the clerk told Allen that she had to remover her covering and glasses to take her picture. Yvonne Allen proceeded to explain to the clerk that she does not uncover her hair for religious reasons. The clerk asked her if she was Muslim, Allen responded no and claimed she was a Christian, and the clerk told her, “No, then you uncover your hair. Only Muslim women have the right to cover their hair in their driver license photos.” Allen was hurt by this encounter and asked to talk to the clerk’s supervisor, Chief Clerk Becky Frayer. Frayer confirmed that the religious accommodation was only offered to Muslims and Yvonne Allen was not eligible because she was a Christian. Because Allen was leaving for Florida for vacation soon and had other responsibilities that required the use of her car such as taking her kids to school and going to work, she had no choice but to remove her headscarf and take the picture. Now that her license shows her head uncovered, she must uncover her headscarf every time she must show her license, like at a bank or at the store when needed.
In February of 2004, the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency created a policy allowing driver license applicants to wear certain head coverings in their photos for religious or medical reasons. As long as the face is identifiable and the individual presents religious or medical reason for covering, there should be no problem with the wearing of a headscarf. However, the drivers license office claimed the head covering was only applicable for the Muslim faith, and Christians do not qualify.
The Establishment Clause written in the First Amendment prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” Not only can the government not establish a religion, but this clause also forbids government from favoring one religion over the other. In this particular case, the defendants’ policy of restricting accommodations for religious headgear for only those who identify as Muslim over those of non-Muslim faith shows a direct violation of the Establishment Clause and Yvonne Allen’s rights. Allen believes her headscarf is important to her religion, and she is protected by the First Amendment to that belief. She is also protected by the Alabama state law. Because of the resounding evidence in favor of Allen, the federal court found that the Lee County’s policy violates the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Yvonne Allen was given a settlement and a new license with her head covered.
I believe the court made the right decision by deeming the actions by the drivers license office in Auburn unconstitutional because it is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause where they seem to favor the Muslim religion over non-Muslim. It also violates the Free Exercise Clause by discriminating against Allen’s religious views, Christianity. By the drivers license office claiming the head covering was only a Muslim tradition, they were enforcing their own beliefs at their business, a belief that was false none the less. Much of Christian scripture talks about the covering of a woman’s head, and although this tradition has diminished over time, there are still those who practice and believe this to hold true. Yvonne Allen is entitled to her own beliefs the same as the workers at the drivers license office.
3 comments:
I agree with Ben's analysis of the case. This is a clear issue of establishment as it specifically prioritizes the Muslim tradition over other religions. However, I do understand how it could be interpreted as a slippery slope as this is definitely a less commonly practiced Christian tradition. Overall, in either case Allen wearing the headscarf in the photo does not qualify as enough of a burden on secular purposes to justify the government's actions.
I agree with the comment above and the author on their comments about the violation of the Establishment Clause because only Muslims were allowed to cover their hair in drivers license photos. There are apparently no safety reasons for prohibiting people from wearing scarves in their license pictures, so anyone should be able to do it, Muslim, Christian, or anything. In addition, I might argue that anyone should be able to wear their scarves if they want. I think it might be somewhat unfair to only permit those with religious beliefs wear scarves. Though I don't see any reason to wear a scarf in a license photo if you're not religious, giving people an exemption just for religious reasons seems odd to me, again given there are not safety concerns.
I agree with Ben on this case. The DMV workers violated Yvonne Allen's religious rights to following her religious belief. It is not their job or the job of the United States court to validate a religious belief. It is a complete violation of her First Amendment right. It makes her religious view less than that of a Muslim person and it prevents her from following what she believes will grant her sanctity.
Post a Comment