Ricks v. Idaho Board of Contractors

     The Supreme Court will soon hear the case of George Ricks, a 59 year old construction worker who wishes to become an independent contractor and start his own business. Ricks shares the view of a small percentage of christians that registering himself using his social security number is sinful and doing so would violate his religious beliefs. Ricks is willing to provide an array of other valid identification such as his birth certificate to the Idaho Board of Contractors, but they have denied these forms and maintained that a social security number is the only thing they will take to certify him as an independent contractor. The reasoning for the state's interest in collecting social security numbers is due to a state law that utilizes collected social security numbers to help track down parents who have failed to pay child support. Ricks has demonstrated sincerity in his beliefs as he has clearly suffered economically from refusing to provide his social security number and maintains his standing in opposition to the requirement. Both the Idaho District Court and Idaho Court of Appeals have ruled against Ricks. In July of 2019 the Idaho Supreme Court denied to hear the case and it has since been petitioned to the Supreme Court where it is expected to be heard sometime this year.

    This case is clearly an issue of free exercise. The requirement by the Idaho Contractors Board is one that insists Ricks choose between exercising his religious beliefs freely and forwarding his career to provide for his family economically. Thus, Ricks 1st amendment rights are being considered by the courts. The Idaho courts which have heard the case so far decided against Ricks and explained that if a law is neutral and applies to everyone then religious groups cannot simply receive an exemption to a law that is valid. The courts also made it clear that since the law does not particularly target anyone's religious beliefs the incidental burden that the requirement has on Ricks is not enough to grant an exception. Another key point the courts mention is that of the common state interest in maintaining the requirement. They note how the law is set in place to aid congress’s objective in enforcing child support payments and allowing exceptions could lead to people avoiding using their social security number to remain undetected. Therefore they argue the state interest overrides the desire of Ricks to exercise his religious beliefs.

    I agree with the decisions of the Idaho District and Appeal courts due to the precedent set by previous cases, the common state interest noted in this case, and the neutrality of the law. Ricks’ claim that the exercise of his religious beliefs are being infringed upon due to a neutral law do not override the common state interest of said law and do not exempt him from abiding by something the government is regulating. An important case to look at that when determining the validity of Ricks argument is the case of Employment Division v. Smith. This case helps us see the extent to which exceptions are made for people with unique religious practices. In the end it determines that the individual cannot be excused from a valid law that has a state interest because of a religious belief. This can be applied to the case of George Ricks because his religious belief does not override the state interest in gathering social security numbers and does not provide him a ‘free pass’ to be excused from neutral laws. The law requiring social security numbers does place an unintended burden upon Ricks but this burden does not mean he can get an exception as the law does not target his particular beliefs and therefore burdens all people. It is important to consider the slippery slope that could occur by providing exceptions to a law like this which has a compelling state interest. If exceptions are given, people could avoid providing their social security numbers to simply avoid the legal repercussions of things like not paying child support. This could go even further to people citing religious beliefs to be exempted from civic duties. I believe the compelling state interest to have people provide their social security numbers, the neutrality of the law, and the very real possibility of a dangerous slippery slope is enough to deny Ricks an exemption to this law.