Aekash Singh, Jaskirat Singh, and Milaap Singh Chahal were recruited by the Marine Corps and are all devout to the Sihk faith. It is tradition in the Sikh faith for men to grow out beards/head hair and to wear a turban. The Sikh teachings instruct them to “shun evil and seek self-mastery, to regard God’s creation as sacred, and to always defend the weak and helpless”. Therefore, many devout Sikhs perform their religious duties through military service but must stay devout to their faith, which is to not cut their hair. However, the Marine Corps gave the three men an ultimatum, either shave your head or you cannot join this branch of the military. Aekash Singh, Jaskirat Singh, and Milaap Singh Chahal passed all physical and medical tests required to join the Marine Corps, however, the Marine Corps has a basic training requirement to shave your head to have a “uniform appearance” that is deemed necessary for basic training. However, the Marines allow recruits to not shave their beards if they have a medical condition. Other branches of the military such as Army, Air Force, and the United States Military Academy allow for religious beards during basic training.
This case introduces the question of whether or not the Marine Corps requirement to shave one's head for basic training or not in order to join the Marine Corps infringes upon Aekash Singh, Jaskirat Singh, and Milaap Singh Chahal First Amendment Right to Free Exercise of Religion. This ultimatum places a substantial burden upon the men because growing their hair is a sacred duty to their faith. As well, the uniformity of appearance claim that the Marine Corps is arguing is null because other branches of the military are lenient with their appearance if there is a religious component. Moreover, the Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which “bans the federal government from restricting religious freedom unnecessarily. This means that denying religious accommodations by asserting a need for uniformity while granting lots of other secular exceptions is not only unfair but unlawful as well”. (Colby) Therefore, the Marine Corps is being unconstitutional by forcing these recruits to choose between their religion and their military obligation.
Using the precedent Goldman v. Weinberger, which was the case in which the Air Force did not allow the wearing of headgear such as a Yarmulke. The dissenting opinion in this case pointed out a similar aspect in this case that this ban is not neutral in practice because it discriminates against minority religious groups, as well as, there is no rational reasoning for enforcing a shaved head and it is a burden on free exercise rights. Moreover, there is no evidence that supports the Marine Corps claim that having longer hair hurts the morale of personnel, especially when other branches of government are allowing it. To further argue that this ban against the Sikh practicing men is not neutral in practice and discriminates against religious groups is because the Marine Corps allows hair to be grown out when there is a medical condition as minimal as razor bumps. This is a substantial burden upon these men by choosing what they believe is God’s requirement to grow out their hair or take orders from the commanding officers to stay in basic training.
To conclude, this decision the Marine Corps is instituting upon Aekash Singh, Jaskirat Singh, and Milaap Singh Chahal is unconstitutional and infringes upon the First Amendment Right of Free Exercise of Religion for these men. This ban is not neutral and discriminates against religious groups and favors secular groups within the Marine Corps. Although the men enter the military and lose some rights for the better of state compelling interest it does not mean they lose their First Amendment Rights of religion and are substantially burdened with the choice between the military duties and God. The state has no compelling interest in how the military recruits wear their hair because there is no evidence that shaved heads help national security.
This is a very interesting case to me. I see this as very different from Goldman v. Weinberger because in that case military expert advice was used to explain that the ban against wearing the Yarmulke was valid. Military experts felt the uniformity made the military stronger when keeping all uniforms the same. This conformity of uniforms allowed for hierarchy to be acknowledged within the military which creates a stronger military. This then leads to all citizens of the United States to be protected more, therefore giving the state a compelling interest to refuse the petitioners to wear their Yarmulke. In this case however, it is difficult to apply this same reasoning if medical exceptions are given to people with a burden as small as razor bumps. Also, with other military branches (the Army, Air Force, and U.S. Military Academy) not requiring participants to shave it is difficult for the argument to be made for the Marine Corps that this is necessary on the basis of uniformity being important. Overall, I don’t see this as an infringement on the petitioners ability to freely exercise their religion, but more of a substantial burden on them. They are not being forced to participate in the Marine Corps and have the choice to not participate in order to not shave and freely exercise their religion. If joining the Marine Corps was their only option in order to perform their religious duties to “shun evil and seek self-mastery, to regard God’s creation as sacred, and to always defend the weak and helpless” this would be an infringement on their free exercise, but there are other ways in order for them to do this. It is a substantial burden on this group and an attack on minority religious groups to not grant them an exception to keep their hair. However, they are still able to freely exercise their religion if they choose to do so. This choice however, is a very substantial burden.
ReplyDeleteGreat work! I like the way you explained how this policy is facially neutral but affects religious minority groups. I agree with your analysis and would argue that in this case, the military is actually favoring non-religion over religion. By providing exemptions for medical reasons (a secular purpose) and denying exemptions for religious reasons, the government is clearly not being neutral between religion and non-religion. However, I'm not completely convinced that there is no research supporting shaved heads to constitute a compelling state interest. Many sources argue that this is a uniting tradition that promotes order, discipline, and hygiene within the armed forces. While these factors may not constitute a compelling state interest in a civilian community, the nature of the military is inherently different and thus must be treated differently.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the Marine Corps' actions are unconstitutional. It appears to unnecessarily restrict freedom in violation of the RFRA, as the Marine Corps does not really have a compelling interest to not offer religious exemptions, when other branches of the military already do, and the Marine Corps offers exemptions for medical issues as minor as razor bumps. It seems as though this case is extremely similar to Goldman v. Weinberger, a case that was controversially decided before the RFRA was put into place, and before other branches of the military lessened their rules pertaining to uniformity. I believe that if this case were brought to the court today, it would be ruled in favor of Singh.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I have mixed views on your post, as I find that the Marine Corps not paving ways for exceptions could be considered to be unconstitutional as they are not allowing the free exercise of religion that the other branches of service do. I also understand Lea's argument of hygiene, tradition, and uniform. I understand your words of "recruited" as someone suggested they join the Marine Corps and that they joined willingly with no draft. In the event that they willingly joined the Marine Corps, I see as if they have a choice to either comply to the Marine Corps standards, pick another branch of service to fulfill their religious beliefs of service, or they do not have to serve at all.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that not allowing these men to grow out their hair is a violation of their First Amendment rights. As stated in other comments, these men do not have to be in the Marines and can join a different military branch instead. I think that following a certain uniform is a neutral policy and does not specifically attack religion. I think it is possible that there is a compelling state interest to ensure that everyone looks the same to promote discipline and unity. However, I do see both sides and it is unfortunate that these men are forced to choose between their religion and the Marines.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that this rule is unconstitutional and a violation of their right to freedom of exercise. The argument that allowing these exceptions don't allow for uniformity and will decrease morale are baseless. Granted that exceptions can be given for something as minor as razor bumps but not for directly having to violate owns deeply personal religious beliefs is unfair. Not to mention others branches of the military allowing for exceptions clearly contradict the marine corps argument of congruency. Just because they aren't being forced to join the military, doesn't mean that this type of rule is permissible. They have passed all their tests and are simply being barred from joining and serving the United States for simply wanted to grow out their hair due to the significance it holds in their religious beliefs. That is a direct violation of their freedom to exercise. This cause no burden on the Marine Corps and doesn't provide any safety concerns it's simply a matter of "uniformity". The burden is largely being placed on the three men and Marine Corps should allow for their exception.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Angie as the Goldman case sets a clear precedent that the military is held to a different standard when it comes to First Amendment violations. I do think it is unfortunate that the other branches of the military have been accommodating with medical exemptions, however that is their choice to make. While it would be great for the Marines to join in with the other branches, if they feel that this is best for the safety of this country and being prepared for war, then that is the way it should be.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI thought you had a great analytical post! I also thought of the precedent case of Goldman v. Weinberger which was ruled closely (5-4) will prove that the court will rule in favor of the Marine Corps in not violating the men’s first amendment’s rights. This case could be considered a slippery slope because the men are willingly joining the Marine Corps and certain uniformity and regulations are required, however there is the contradictory argument that could be made that their religious beliefs are not putting the nation’s security at risk. It would be frustrating for the men if other branches of the military are considering exemptions. However, the policy does seem neutral and is not specifically targeting their particular religion. I would say the case would be considered in the eyes of Goldman v. Weinberger, but I ultimately agree that the rule does put a substantial burden on the men’s religion and is a violation of their free exercise.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I agree that this policy is placing an undue burden on these individuals and is discriminatory in nature. This policy is not neutral, because as some other commenters mentioned, it is privileging nonreligion over religion. However, while I agree with you, I do wonder how the Supreme Court would rule on this case--in Goldman v. Weinberger the court discussed the importance of maintaining uniformity in the military as well as the military's ability to be exempt from certain aspects of the constitution. Therefore, it seems as if the court would be compelled to side with the marines, although I believe the three men have a more convincing argument.
ReplyDeleteWhat a great post! I think the Marine Corp is placing an undue and substantial burden by forcing these men to shave their heads. It clearly violates their sincere religious belief and is a highly restrictive means. It makes no sense why all of the marines need to have shaved heads, and why uniformity would triumph religious beliefs or the ability to exercise religion
ReplyDelete