The case before the courts is one of the free exercise clause and an employment opportunity. George Ricks is a nearly 60-year-old man with four children, hoping to become an "independent contractor." As required by the Idaho Board of Contractors, those applying to be an independent contractor must include their government-issued Social Security number on their application. In 2014, Ricks applied to the Idaho Board of Contractors without having his Social Security number, which is a crime in Idaho. Ricks' religion prohibits him from including his Social Security number "as a condition of obtaining work." Understanding that the Idaho Board of Contractors required the Social Security number, Ricks offered an alternate form of identification, his birth certificate. Ricks was hopeful due to the Board's history of exceptions, yet they refused to accommodate him, and he was denied. According to Becket, “a federal law dictates that the Board of Contractors will receive extra funding if it collects contractors' Social Security numbers.” When the Idaho Board of Contractors refused to allow Ricks to register as an independent contractor, he lost his income, putting his family at risk. The United States Supreme Court is expected to announce a decision in 2021.
%2Fcdn.vox-cdn.com%2Fuploads%2Fchorus_asset%2Ffile%2F19154337%2FRicks_Photos_17.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.deseret.com%2F2019%2F8%2F30%2F20837553%2Freligious-belief-freedom-supreme-court-constitution-bible&tbnid=tXo510G-ufN14M&vet=12ahUKEwj4v_vH_ZLvAhVBh1MKHTBbAYEQMygBegQIARAw..i&docid=na_IxdgO5ktqLM&w=1400&h=933&q=ricks%20v.%20idaho%20board%20of%20contractors&ved=2ahUKEwj4v_vH_ZLvAhVBh1MKHTBbAYEQMygBegQIARAw)
The free exercise clause states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..” Citing the book of Revelation, Ricks believes that providing his Social Security number to the government would be “the 'mark of the beast.' ” By forcing Ricks to provide his Social Security number, the Idaho Board of Contractors is prohibiting Ricks' free exercise of his religion. Ricks is not attempting to defraud the Board of Contractors and has offered up alternative forms of identification to do so. Additionally, the Idaho Board of Contractors could contact the federal government themselves for Ricks' Social Security; it just goes against his religious beliefs to hand it over to them. Therefore, I believe the Idaho Board of Contractors is unconstitutionally prohibiting the free exercise of religion in this case.
By refusing Ricks to register as an independent contractor and refusing to accept an alternate form of identification, the Idaho Board of Contractors is placing a substantial burden on Ricks. As observed in the Supreme Court Case Sherbert v. Verner, it was determined that “The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from setting unemployment benefits eligibility requirements such that a person cannot properly observe key religious principles.” The majority opinion, in this case, holds that there was “a significant burden on Sherbert's ability to freely exercise her faith.” Especially with the majority opinion in the Supreme Court's ruling in Sherbert v. Verner, I find that there was also a significant burden placed on Ricks. Suppose the courts rule in favor of the Idaho Board of Contractors. In that case, they are placing a substantial burden on Ricks and his family and setting the precedent that employers do not have to accommodate their employees. While the application of a Social Security number may seem minuscule to one, it is not within the court's scope to determine what aspect of one's religious belief they can or cannot practice.
9 comments:
I agree that Ricks should be able to register as an independent contractor, even if he does not provide his social security number. If the history of the Idaho Board shows that they have given exceptions in the past for individuals without social security numbers is true, then Ricks should also be eligible for an exception. By not holding a neutral stance and not showing the same treatment that secular cases have seen, I believe that the Idaho Board is violating the free exercise clause.
I also agree that the Idaho Board of Contractors is violating Ricks's free exercise rights. As we've seen in many similar cases, the Board is essentially coercing Ricks into abandoning his belief system for one favored by the Board in order to make a living for himself and his family. It is an unfair burden to put on one's self and religion, as well as violating both Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, to make someone choose between the to - in one instance, putting himself and his family at risk by being unable to make a living and, in another instance, being coerced into an established/expected belief system. Additionally, it seems foolish that the Board would not take another form of identification. There seems to be no evidence provided as to why an SSN would be so necessary over a birth certificate, so I 100% believe that this is an exception that needs to be made in order to preserve Rick's religious freedom as protected by the US Constitution.
I agree with the author here that the Board of Contractors is in fact violating the Constitutional right of the free exercise clause. If they are making exceptions for individuals without social security, why cannot they do the same for Rick. Furthermore, I would argue that because Rick provided another form of identification, his birth certificate, that he should be given approval to work as an independent contractor. I believe that individuals cannot force others to have to make a decision between their religion and their work & income. I think that there is a bias in this situation given that the state makes a profit when contractors do provide their social security number, that them knowing a contractor has one and refuses to show it due to any reason, religious or not, the board of directors will deny certification due to their failure to make a profit. I think this proves to be unconstitutional because they are violating ones rights to express their religion.
Ricks should be able to register for employment as an independent contractor without submitting his social security card due to the exemptions and precedents that have occurred before this case. Ricks was compliant in that fact that he offered other forms of identification and therefore, the Board of Contractors is restricting the free exercise of religion of Ricks. The only contrasting opinion I can stipulate is if Ricks were to receive this exemption, who is stopping another individual from not showing any identification based on religious views from entering this employment. The slippery slope could allow fraudulent individuals to benefit from this work but that is not the circumstance in this case.
When asking questions about a "compelling interest" for the government to add restrictions upon the free exercise of religion, one has to understand whether there's another less intensive route. Ricks' decision not to furnish his Social Security number is not the operative issue: instead, it's whether the government can identify him as someone able to serve as an independent contractor. If they can obtain the relevant information any other way, including circumventing his decision not to provide his Social Security number by finding it another legal way, then I believe that the Board's decision is a violation of Ricks' free exercise of religion. If the only legal avenue that the Board can obtain his Social Security number is through self-identifying it, then I believe the rule is not a violation on the free exercise of religion.
I agree with the author that Idaho is violating Rick's free exercise of religion. The article clearly explains that Rick has a sincerely held religious belief and has made a good faith effort to prove who he is to the state by providing his birth certificate. That state could easily access his Social Security number by means other than forcing him to violate his religious beliefs by providing his social security number to them in a manner he finds religiously unacceptable. Likewise, since the state has made exceptions for other religious groups, it is interesting they cannot do the same for Rick. Admittedly Rick's beliefs make it a little more difficult for the state to verify who his identity. However the First Amendment is meant to protect fringe but sincere religious views like his, and cannot compel him to violate his beliefs in order to earn a living.
I think that an important aspect of this case that has been somewhat overlooked is the importance of the states compelling interest in this case. In my opinion, the use Social Security numbers is a very neutral practice because it does not inherently discriminate against any one group while serving as a universal identification. This is especially true in regard to being hired for a job or independent contractor because it is one of the few identifying pieces of information that is unique to the individual. Its importance for background checks, paying employees, and ensuring that the individual can be properly tracked can not be understated. Using other documents such as a birth certificate can be useful when someone does not have a social security number but still is not an equivalent replacement. Furthermore, I think this would open up the possibility for a slippery slope. As a society as large as we are the need to properly identify individuals spans and affects almost every aspect of our life. If people are allowed to gain exemptions from this I believe it would degrade our ability to function properly as a society.
I think an interesting aspect of this case is the fact that the Idaho Board of Contractors profits from Ricks not registering. I also agree with your opinion and believe that the board is in the wrong in this case. The Board of Contractors should not legally be discriminating someone based off their religious choices. There is no harm in giving Ricks his license and he should legally be allowed to choose not to give his social security number. By denying him, this would limit his freedom of speech/religion protected by the First Amendment.
Post a Comment