For generations, the sailors of the United States Navy have been linked with their facial hair. Many Naval leaders in history have sported facial hair. Admiral Zumwalt, the Chief of Naval Operations in the 1970s, even stated that no sailor would face discrimination if they had chosen to have facial hair. The purpose was not only to support sailors with religious beliefs that made them sport a beard to show religious maturity but also to help sailors that suffered from razor burn from having to shave so often. In 1985 the Navy decided to ban beards across the entire Navy. They did, however, leave room for exceptions to this rule for significant medical or religious reasons. The Navy's reasoning behind the beard ban is that it could interfere with a gas-mask seal, making it hard for sailors to perform their duties. Recently, however, the Navy has been very strict with these exemptions. This is also strange as other branches of the United States Military, including the Army and Air Force, are very open to giving exceptions to allow soldiers with religious beliefs to wear facial hair with their uniform. This leads us to our plaintiff Edmund Di Liscia. Edmund is an Orthodox Jew who joined the Navy in 2018. In the Orthodox Jewish religion, you are ordered to grow out your facial hair to show maturity and obedience to G-d's will. Due to this belief, Edmund filed a request for an exemption from the Navy's beard ban in September 2020. This was denied; however, Edmund was fortunate enough to have a commanding officer who granted him a "chit," which is essentially a temporary accommodation to keep his beard. The problem Edmund faced with this temporary accommodation showed itself in April of 2021 when the Navy informed the commanding officer this chit was no longer valid and that everyone on the ship must be cleanly shaven. Edmund was told that if he did not remove the beard within 24 hours, there would be a punishment. After this, Edmund and the other sailors this ban affected realized that he must take legal action in order to protect their right to exercise their religious beliefs and filed suit. The Navy stated they would not make Edmund shave for the time being.
The critical question, in this case, is whether it constitutional for the United States Navy to ban its soldiers from having a beard even if they state it is for religious purposes or violates the soldier's First Amendment right to Free exercise of religion. When examining if the Navy's rejection of Edmund's request is unconstitutional, there are a couple of crucial issues. For one, Edmund's belief that he must have a beard is sincere. I think it is assumed no one is questioning the sincerity of Edmund's belief but that having a beard could affect his performance in a job that is a matter of national security. Then we must look at whether this is a substantial burden upon Edmund. Well, it is hard to say for someone who is not an Orthodox Jew, it may very well seem that this is not a substantial burden as it is just hair, but to an Orthodox Jew who believes that having a beard is showing obedience to an almighty power, it may very well seem as though this is a substantial burden. Although this could be considered a burden, we must consider the neutrality of this ban. Is this neutral to all who serve in the Navy? Yes, it is, as everyone must do it. When looking at if there is a less restrictive mean for this policy, I wonder if concerns over the gas masks can be put to rest by setting a length on the beard, which would still allow Edmund and others to keep their beards while giving the Navy confidence they can perform their duties. All of these are essential issues to look at, but the question I propose is, do members of our military who all joined under their free will as there has not been a draft since 1973 lose certain rights that our Government believes could interfere with protecting our country?
This question has been brought up in Supreme Court cases in the past that have looked at situations where an officer of one of the military branches may or may not be given accommodation to their uniform due to religious beliefs. We saw this in the case of Goldman v. Weinberger, where a Jewish member of the Air Force, Rabbi Weinberger, was not allowed to wear a kippah as the Air Force bylaws stated that no headwear was allowed in the uniform. This rule's purpose is different than the Navy's beard ban. The purpose of this law was to show uniformity in our Air Force, while the Navy's reasoning is directly for the safety and performance of the soldier. In a 5-4 decision, the court found that this rule was constitutional and that the Air Force not allowing Rabbi Goldman to wear the kippah while on duty was not unconstitutional. The reasoning from the majority of this case was that Military officials have much less protection than regular citizens and that this was to create uniformity. Weinberger argued that wearing the kippah had no threat to anyone, and therefore he should be allowed to wear it based on his beliefs. The court stood by its decision and created the president that when you join the military, you lose many rights a regular citizen may have as it is now your task to defend your nation. I believe this case directly correlates to Edmund's predicament concerning having a beard. Edmund Di Liscia joined the Navy for whatever reasons he may have had, but he did so by his own will and had fewer rights than a regular citizen.
When looking at all of the facts of this case and previous cases the Supreme court has ruled on, it isn't easy to come to a decision. When applying the Sherbert test, we have to look at three things. Does this law or act place a substantial religious burden on one's free exercise of religion? Two, is there a compelling state interest for this law to be in place? Lastly, are there any less restrictive means by which this law can be applied? When looking at if it is a substantial burden, as previously stated, this is very hard to argue either way. To a non-Orthodox Jew, this does not seem like much of a burden at all. It just requires you to shave your face, but to an Orthodox Jew, this may seem like a significant burden as you are being asked to disobey G-d. When looking at if there is a compelling state interest, it is clear to the Navy there is. The Navy believes that having a beard hinders one's ability to wear a gas mask and could be a significant safety and performance hazard. Whether one believes this is the case or not, it is what our United States Navy believes is a vital issue that needs to be avoided. Finally, when looking at if there could be a less restrictive means by which this law can be applied, I am not entirely sure. One suggestion would be that the Navy sets a length limit on the beard, but to the Orthodox Jews or other groups that believe they must have a beard, is trimming the beard just as bad as shaving your face clean? Either way, I believe that when someone willfully joins a branch of the United States Military, the specific branch has the right to put in effect certain laws that the branch believes will protect our country, even if that violates certain rights you may have had before as an ordinary citizen. For this reason, I think the United States Navy has not violated Edmund's right to the free exercise of religion.
I really enjoyed reading your post, Jake. I agree with you that the Navy has not violated Edmund’s right to the free exercise of religion. I feel like this case differs from Goldman v. Weinberger because the problem with the kippah was more about visual uniformity and less about safety. In this case, however, having a beard hinders one’s ability to wear a gas mask, which is necessary for the safety of the sailor.
ReplyDeleteGreat post Jake! I agree with you in this case. I think there is certainly a substantial burden placed on Edmund, but our country's national security is also a compelling state interest. I think the compelling interest overrides the burden because an entire country can be affected by an issue in a Naval setting, while only one person's religious beliefs are violated. I think this is a neutral policy so his religion and religion, in general, are not being discriminated against. Like you had said, Edmund joined the Navy on his own free will, thus his main goal, when he is there, needs to be to serve the country.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Navy did unconstitutionally restrict Di Liscia's right to free exercise. I also came to this conclusion with the Sherbert Test. I agree that the Navy placed a substantial burden on his right to free exercise by requiring him to shave his beard. However, I disagree with the Navy's claim that there is a compelling interest in substantially limiting the number of religious and medical exemptions regarding beard growth. I am basing this claim on the actions of the Army and Air Force. It can be assumed that both branches assessed the security problems that would come with providing exemptions to shaving, and deemed it not to be a threat to our national security. By looking at the actions of the other branches, I believe the Navy should also provide exemptions.
ReplyDeleteThis was a really interesting case to read about! I agree that this decision does not violate Edmund’s right to free exercise of religion. Even though I believe that not allowing him to have his beard places a substantial burden on him, I also believe that in this case the navy has a compelling interest to require him to shave it since it could hinder his performance and ultimately act as a threat to national security. In addition to this, based off of similar previous cases such as Goldman v. Weinberger, I think that the court should apply similar logic to this case. Based off of the fact that his beard could possibly be act as a threat to national security by hindering his abilities to do his job, I believe that requiring him to shave is not a violation of his free exercise.
ReplyDeleteUpon reading the facts of this dispute, I was reminded of Goldman v Weinberger, a similar case decided in 1986. In a narrow 5-to-4 majority, the court ruled that the protections of the free exercise clause were not as extensive for active duty servicemen as they were for general citizens, in the name of national security, of course. When the safety of the serviceman is at stake (or is perceived to be), the courts ruled that the military can place bans that restricted soldiers' free exercise. I believe the precedent of this ruling can be fairly applied to this case, as well. DiLiscia's beard has been deemed a serious health risk, as it would leave him susceptible to presumably harmful toxins because his gas mask could not be properly fitted. As such, the military has a compelling interest in having DiLiscia shave his beard. It is also worth noting that the Navy's ban on beards is neutrally applicable and widely applied. This ban is not some specific target against members of the Jewish community or attempt to drive devout groups from service.
ReplyDeleteGreat Post! I think the cases involving apparel and facial hair are extremely interesting. I do believe that the military has a right to have restrictions on facial hair. When one joins the military they are choosing to protect the country and follow the rules the military outlines. I agree that a person doesn't have to join the military, therefore when they do they need to follow the rules which are neutral to everyone. You do a valuable job applying the Sherbert Test in this case. I do agree that the compelling state interest in this case is more potent, then the substantial burden.
ReplyDeleteYou had a great post! I also agree with your stance that having a shaved face does not violate his Free Exercise of Religion. The most compelling argument I found was that Edmund did not have to join the Navy. If he knew the laws that the Navy had, and he decided to defy the rule in hopes of pursuing his religious exercise, he could have joined a different branch of the military, or to not join at all. I also agree with previous comments that the protection of our country is essential and I do not think it places a substantial burden upon his religion. I think there a compelling interest of the military to keep their officers alive, by placing these laws to protect their health.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great post! I think this case and those similar involving facial hair are very interesting. I agree with your stance. The compelling state interest that the Navy states is true and neutral. All of those who choose to join the military have to shave their face under the Navy's rules. Not allowing Di Liscia to keep his beard is not a personal attack on his religion. All are not allowed to have a beard, not just certain individuals. I think it is interesting that other branches of the military do not have as restrictive rules regarding beards, but, nevertheless, the Navy branch has decided to have these neutral rules. I do not think there are less restrictive means that could be taken.
ReplyDeleteIt is an interesting point in this case that you bring up how when one willfully joins the military to protect the citizens in our country, that this leads to them possibly having less rights than those they are protecting. This is not something I had thought of before. I believe this is a substantial burden placed upon the plaintiff, as it leaves him with the decision of shaving his beard or most likely being forced to withdraw from the Navy. However, I do think the state has a compelling state interest in their reasoning behind forcing members of the Navy to shave their beards. Similar to the Goldman v. Weinberger case you discussed, imposing restrictions on members of the Navy that ultimately protects their own wellbeing (as well as that of the citizens they are serving to protect) is just as valid as the Air Force enforcing rules in an effort to promote unity. Both safety and unity are matters that the U.S. army must take seriously in order to promote success and power within various branches of the Army. In accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Goldman v. Weinberger case, I think it is only fair to hold true to their decision when analyzing this matter and coming to a conclusion.
ReplyDelete