In the case of Allen v. English, Yvonne Allen is a devout Christian woman who covers her hair with a headscarf as a part of her religious practice. In December 2015, Ms. Allen needed to renew her driver's license in Lee County, Alabama. Because her headscarf is a part of her daily dress, she did not plan on taking it off for her picture but was asked several times to take it off although she pled it was for religious reasons. When asked if she was Muslim, she denied and said that she was Christian, to which the county clerk responded, “You are not a Muslim, and Christian women don’t cover their hair.” In tears, Ms. Allen and her friend begged the clerk that she would be disobeying God, but were not believed. Ultimately, she complied and took off her headscarf although it was a part of her faith.
Her faith was questioned because Ms. Allen is not a Muslim woman, but instead a Christian one who was wearing a headscarf. Although a minority within the Christian faith, there are many women of the Christian faith that hold religious beliefs that do not allow them to show their hair in public. Ms. Allen believes that 1 Corinthians 11, which states “... But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head- it is the same as having her head shaved.” Although this belief is not widely practiced or well-known, Ms. Allen believes that if she does not follow the Bible in wearing a headscarf, she is disobeying God. In being asked to remove her headscarf, she was asked to go against her faith.
Following the incident, Ms. Allen and her counsel sent various letters to the Lee County Probate Judge and the Director of Public Safety, but they were all dismissed and she received a letter from the ALEA (Alabama Law Enforcement Agency) informing her of the photograph requirements for probate/licenses across the state of Alabama. The photograph requirements stated, “Head coverings are not permitted except for religious reasons…” The ALEA had set these photograph requirements in place in 2004 and ten years later, they were not allowing Christian women to wear head coverings for religious reasons. The photograph requirements should have granted Ms. Allen an exemption because she stated her religious reasons to the clerk, but she was still asked to take it off.
The issue that is introduced in this case is one of sincerity and testing whether one’s beliefs and practices are sincere within the establishment of religion. Although dissimilar in the facts, a test of sincerity was also presented in the case of United States v. Seeger in which a man was convicted for refusing to join the army. Seeger was denied an exemption because he did not believe in a Supreme being. His argument however, focused on the fact that the state was requiring proof a Supreme being. This is similar to Allen v. English in the manner that her sincerity to wearing a headscarf was dismissed because her faith is not typically known for wearing headscarves.
Because of all the reasons she submitted to the courts and her protection under Alabama state law, the court ruled in her favor and deemed that Lee County had violated the Ms. Allen's Free Exercise Clause by not allowing her to wear a headscarf in her picture.
I strongly believe that Ms. Allen’s first amendment rights were violated by asking her to remove her headscarf for her ID picture. Ms. Allen fully believed that she was betraying her faith and disobeying God by taking off her headscarf in public, something she only does intimately with people of familial ties. In addition to this, when Ms. Allen asked the clerk if the door could be shut while she took the picture, the clerk denied her this privacy, making her appearance more visible to the public eye, something she very clearly stated she did not want. This is not a picture that was taken once and she could avoid forever, this is a drivers license that she must carry around with her for proof of identification, where she will be reminded of the incident and that she disobeyed her God.
5 comments:
Since this photo requirement does have a religious exemption that states: "Head coverings are not permitted except for religious reasons," the clerk themselves nor the ALEA have a right to assess the sincerity of her belief and/or religion. Due to the acceptance of other religious beliefs and thus accommodations, I believe that this is a case of religious discrimination since her religion was denied as acceptable and sincere, and therefore unconstitutional as it prohibits her free exercise of religion.
This is a clear violation of the free exercise clause. First, the religious exemption is not meant to favor any religion, so the fact that a state official was compelling an individual to violate their religious practice because it isn't consistent with other forms of Christianity is appalling. Additionally, the author explained that "when Ms. Allen asked the clerk if the door could be shut while she took the picture, the clerk denied her this privacy, making her appearance more visible to the public eye, something she very clearly stated she did not want". One part of the Sherbert test is that the state has pursued their goal in the manner least restrictive, or least burdensome, to religion. This tenant was violated in the case of Ms. Allen because she was not given any alternative without being forced to disobey her religious beliefs.
I also think that this is a violation of the free exercise clause because the photo requirement does have a religious exemption that would not have been questioned if Mrs Allen was a Muslim or any other religion that routinely, or stereotypically, requires women to cover their hair. Since Mrs Allen was not a member of the afore mentioned groups that is known for requiring or encouraging women to cover their hair, the clerk at the DMV violated her free exercise of religion by requiring her to remove her headdress. This, seems to re-enforce the ideas that we talked about in class that the first amendment is crucial in protecting the religious rights of minorities -- whether they be broader religious minorities or minorities within specific religions.
I agree with the author and the comments, this was an obvious violation of free exercise. It is not for the government to determine what is true or common for free exercise. They can test sincerity, which would have definitely been in Mrs Allen's favor. The First Amendment is to protect those that are a minority, in this case, Mrs. Allen was the minority within the more common practices of Christianity. The fact that the court ruled in her favor shows that the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment are still protected for uncommon practices within common belief systems.
This case was an unconstitutional requirement by the DMV worker to refuse the woman's belief requirements. If a religious exemption is provided for these pictures, then all religious claims should be respected. If needed there can be closer consideration of the claims, but this consideration is important. The actual conviction of someone toward a religious affiliation should be speculated about, and clearly Allen was not doing anything unreasonable. The DMV workers decision was a clear example of the importance of respecting the smaller or lesser known religious groups. If only mainstream religions are recognized, that impedes on rights granted by the first amendment.
Post a Comment