When Sophia Johnston was pulled over in Wilson County, she did not expect to have a violation of her First Amendment rights. She was more concerned about addressing the outstanding charges she had and was very compliant with the officers to address these issues.
Sophia Johnston was pulled over for a broken taillight in Wilson County, where she then learned about an outstanding driving violation from 6 years ago. She had a misdemeanor from 2017 for driving on a suspended license in Rutherford County. She was compliant with the authorities and was taken into each sheriff’s office to address both of her charges. She first went to the Wilson County Sheriff's office where she asked to remove her hijab for her booking photo. She explained the religious importance of keeping her hijab on and the authorities at Wilson County allowed Johnston to take two booking photos. One without her hijab that would not be publicly displayed and one with her hijab that would act as her official booking photo. When she went to the Rutherford County Sheriff’s office, she had a much different experience. When taking her booking photo, she was asked to remove her hijab. After explaining the importance of the religious reasons for wearing the hijab, the officers stated that she must take it off as some people use religion as an excuse to be someone they are not. The officers also stated she would be detained for an unspecified period of time if she didn’t take the booking photo, which was not an option as she was a mother of 8. She was faced with a difficult decision but ultimately decided that she needed to get home to her family and complied by taking off her hijab for the photo.
Considering the facts of the case, did Rutherford County’s sheriff's office unconstitutionally violate her free exercise of religion by requiring her to remove her hijab for the photo? In the lawsuit that was filed, claimed that state law was broken due to Tennessee’s Preservation of Religious Freedom Act, which denied Johnston the freedom to exercise her religion.
The key issue at hand was free exercise of Johnston’s religion. It must be determined whether or not asking her to remove her hijab, a symbol of her religion, violated her right to freely exercise her religion. Looking at the precedent case Cantwell v. Connecticut could provide insight into this question. The 3 members of the Cantwell family went to the streets of New Haven to proselytize, which is a religious duty to Jehovah's Witnesses. The court ruled in favor of the Cantwell’s stating that they can regulate conduct, but not beliefs, and this act was not considered dangerous. In other words, religious actions or duties that do not disrupt peace and good order should not be regulated. This case was also the first instance where the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment Guarantees, which should be carried over into Johnston v. Rutherford County, Tennessee. While proselytizing differs from wearing a hijab, they both represent a religious belief. Although the Rutherford County Sheriff’s Office stated that they were looking out for safety, they did not offer any other accommodation for Johnston. And given the protocol at the Wilson County Sheriff’s Office, it is evident that there are ways to accommodate religious beliefs and ensure that no one is using their religion to pretend to be someone else.
In my opinion, the Rutherford County Sheriff’s office did violate Sophia Johnston’s First Amendment Right to exercise her religion freely. It was stated that she attempted to explain the significance and importance of keeping her hijab on at all times. While the officers who were in charge of her case may not share her religious beliefs, they had a duty to respect them. Johnston stated that the act of not following her religious beliefs was incredibly emotional and difficult. In an interview she stated “‘ I’m just trying so hard to not cry, not to break down because I can’t show these people that they broke me. I felt like at that point, that’s what they wanted me to do’” (WSMV). It is also evident that there are protocols in place to accommodate religious accommodations at other sheriff’s offices and that there was an alternative way to handle this situation.
The case ultimately ended in a settlement, which indicates that the Rutherford County Sheriff’s Office did violate her free exercise of religion. They also updated their protocol to which will now accommodate religious beliefs.
8 comments:
Hi Kendall!
Great post! I enjoyed reading your explanation of the violation of religious rights in this particular case. However, I do disagree with your overall conclusion in that her rights were violated. Although I do sympathize with Johnston for her desire to keep her hijab on during her booking photo, I do understand the stance of the respective police departments. When an individual is booked and documented with domestic authorities, they have committed a crime serious enough to afford such action being taken. There is a protocol in place for these individuals, such as height, weight, and a photograph being taken for their mugshot to use in case of future issues. If she was allowed to keep her hijab on, her hair color and other distinct features would be covered up and there would not be an accurate mugshot of her that authorities could use for future situations. I am in no way implying that Johnston is capable or would commit another crime in the future. But repeat offenses are common with some criminals, and it is in the state's interest to keep a full photo of past criminals on file in the sake of public safety. Therefore, I would argue that the state's interest should reign supreme over her religious obligations because allowing an exception this one time could lead to others that have the potential to harm the law-abiding community.
Kendall, you picked an interesting and intriguing case for your first blog post. In your opinion you added some very valauble points in regards to her religous accomadations not being totally met. However, based on the facts you presented I would have to disagree. I believe the police departments didn't overstep their boundaries. Although it was against Johnston's religion and hurt her feelings they had a right to take her hijab off for her mugshot. I say this because it can disrupt the peace and good order of the community. The polce department was looking out for the public's safety so that they had a picture of her face just in case she committed another possibly larger crime. They also stated that people have fraudulently used their religion to get out of mugshots in the past. This case was a compelling case for Johnston but the police department did not violate her rights.
Hi Kendall,
This is a very interesting and complicated case and I think you wrote about it in a clear, unbiased way. Overall, I agree with your conclusion that Johnston’s right to free exercise was violated. I think the main issue here is not that she was asked to remove her hijab for the photo, but rather the fact that a photo without her hijab would be published publicly. According to Johnston, this violates her religious convictions and causes her great distress. I agree with the other commenters that specific police procedure exists for the protection of society and thus, should not be hindered; however, in circumstances like Johnston’s, there are ways to conduct the standard protocol without infringing on her religious exercise. The Wilson County Sheriff’s office was willing to accommodate Johnston and her religious beliefs by taking two photos: one without her hijab for their own records and one with her hijab that would be publicly displayed. Because this office handled Johnston’s request with minimal issue, I believe that the Rutherford County Sheriff’s office could have done the same. As a result of their unwillingness to think of alternative options, I agree that they violated Johnston’s right to free exercise.
Hi Kendall,
Great post -- enjoyed reading it. The Rutherford County Sheriff’s Office violated Sophia Johnston’s First Amendment right to exercise her religion freely. The demand for her to remove her hijab, despite her attempts to explain its religious significance, reflects a disregard for her deeply held beliefs. The contrasting approach at the Wilson County Sheriff’s Office highlights that accommodations can be made without compromising public safety. Johnston’s emotional distress during the incident further underscores the human impact of such violations. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of respecting religious freedoms within law enforcement. In my view, it underscores the need for ongoing sensitivity training to ensure officers understand and uphold the diverse religious practices of the communities they serve.
Kendall, this case is really thought-provoking, and I assumed that there would be a difference of opinion on this case, which makes it all the more interesting. I think initially this case is very complex, because as we have discussed in class where do we draw the line between government and religion? It's hard to say as I feel there is a grey area and no direct rules or procedures to follow in instances like this, especially minority religions which most Americans are less familiar with. We have established in class that it is well within the rights of secular government authorities to intervene if it is for the public safety or good. Beliefs are fully protected but actions may be regulated if there is a compelling state interest. In this case, I believe there was a compelling state interest to abide by their protocols when asking Johnston to remove her hijab. Although I find it morally upsetting, because there was a strong compelling state interest in this case in order for the well being and protection of society, her rights were not infringed upon. Additionally, because they allowed her to take one picture with her hijab which would be the publicly published photo, this allowed her to freely exercise her religious rights within the public sphere, whereas in the private sphere she had to abide by specific protocols.
This was a very interesting case and it is challenging to decide whether it is constitutional or unconstitutional. Ultimately I agree with your decision that Sophia Johnston’s first amendment right was violated under the free exercise clause. I understand that if the police officers are concerned regarding individuals using religion as an excuse to hide their identity if they were to commit another crime. I could see how one could say that Johnston not taking off her hijab could be an issue of safety which would then allow the officers to restrict her first amendment rights. But I believe that it is possible to confirm Johnston’s identity in other ways that do not require her to take off her hijab. I believe that Johnston’s rights were violated and she should have been provided with religious accommodations.
I agree with Claire and Christian. I think the police had a strong motive to take her photo, which Anthony nicely elaborates, and the state has the right to limit people's behavior when required. However, this wasn't the least restrictive way to achieve the police's need. Publically displaying the woman's photo unnecessarily violated her ability to exercise her religious duty.
This case is interesting but I can't help but notice a pretty pervasive double standard legally speaking. In some cases like Engel v Vitale, the public thinks we ought to just put up with official prayer recitations in publicly paid for schools because "its not such a big deal, and if you want you can leave the classroom." However I cant help but notice that in this case, simply taking off a hijab, which is not even scripturally obligated according to the Quran, is suddenly a huge deal, worthy of legal action. In my view, drawing equivalencies between wearing a hijab and free speech, is similar to the idea that money donations in politics equals speech, and for that I think Ms. Johnston is out of line. If a secular person walks into a Hindu temple and refuses to take their shoes off, they're just being a jerk, but If a muslim behaves more or less the same way in a secular setting, bound by laws that were democratically decided, he or she is seen as being wronged.
Post a Comment