ACLU v. Lee County

 Alabama ACLU v. Lee County

The ACLU of Alabama filed a lawsuit after a Christian woman was forced to remove her headscarf in her driver’s license photograph. The client, Yvonne Allen, believes that wearing a headscarf is a crucial part of her religion, and that she must not reveal her hair to others, and although exceptions are made when taking drivers license pictures to Muslim women, this exception as not given to Allen. During the argument at the DMV, a staff member attempted to justify the actions of Lee Country by comparing both of their christian beliefs. She compared her christian beliefs to that of Allen’s, and stated that since she felt no need to cover her hair, neither should Allen. The ACLU argues that the county's restriction to Allen is in violation of Alabama state regulation, and the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause. This brings up not only issues of the discriminatory actions against a Christian’s ability to lawfully wear a headscarf in their driver's license, but also begs the question as to what the compelling interest might be to not allow an exemption for all that believe it is required under their religious beliefs. 

The ACLU is addressing the main issue at hand, which is that Allen’s First Amendment right to freely exercise her religion, which in this case means wearing her headscarf and protecting her hair, is being violated by the county. In this case, there are two issues at hand: the fact that an exemption has been made to Muslim women, and the fact even if there was no exemption given, the County would still be in violation of Allen’s constitutional rights. The staff member's argument that Christianity does not require the wearing of headscarves brings up the issue of state interpretation of sincerity. This is dangerous grounds to operate on, as the interpretation of the sincerity of one's beliefs can lead to a slippery slope and provide future opportunities for other state entities to make these interpretations. There is also the issue of religious discrimination against her proclaimed Christian belief. The County argues that the exemption is only to be provided to Muslim women. This raises issues of religious inequality, which under the constitution, do not exist. Under the constitution, all religions, including Islam and Christianity, are to be treated equally, with no one religion receiving preferential treatment over another. 

The ACLU makes the argument addressing the issue of the discriminatory practice. Senior staff attorney for the ACLU argues, “The county’s policy is puzzling. There is absolutely no reason to restrict accommodations for religious headgear to certain religions. The Constitution protects both Christians and Muslims and, indeed, people of all faiths.” The ACLU also touches on what believes to the lack of existence of a compelling state interest in this situation. Director of the ACLU Women’s Rights Project states, “For many women like Ms. Allen, headscarves are a religious obligation, and wearing them imposes no harm on others.” The ACLU believes that there is no evidence of an imminent threat posed by allowing subjects to take drivers license photos with a headscarf if their religion requires them to do so. 

The issue at hand is extremely important, as it addresses one’s ability to freely express their religious beliefs through the use of a head scarf, which although it may seem uncommon, is crucial to some religions throughout the US. I believe that there is certainly an easy, and right decision to be made here. Not allowing the religious exemption provided to Muslim women to be utilized by Christian women, and any being who must wear a headscarf would be a clear and obvious violation of their First Amendment rights. This type of unconstitutional, and discriminatory behavior cannot be allowed in the US. All religions be treated equally, and the religious beliefs of all US citizens must be respected under the US constitution. To those that say that allowing the exemption for Christian women would lead to a slippery slope where large numbers of people would soon be asking for accommodations due to a “religious belief”, I say that this argument is not valid. Not only is this an unrealistic and unlikely outcome, but one could argue that the slippery slope idea is more applicable in the opposite manner, and that restricting Allen’s religious belief would open the door to more restrictions on the wearing of headscarves in driver’s license pictures. In addition to this, the state has no compelling interest in denying Allen’s request in this situation. Since the accommodation has already been made to Muslim women, a group often criticized and inaccurately deemed “threatening” because of religious stereotypes connected to terrorism, one cannot argue that Allen poses any sort of threat here. I believe that an accommodation must be made for Allen, and for all religious beliefs that require the wearing of a headscarf.   

Sources:

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/christian-woman-must-be-allowed-wear-religious-headscarf-driver-license-photo-aclu