Di Liscia v. Austin (2021)

    A federal judge temporarily postponed the order for a Jewish Sailor in the United States navy to shave his beard that he maintains for religious reasons Di Liscia v. Austin (2021). Prior to this ruling, Di Liscia filed a complaint that his religious rights and beliefs were being violated after the US navy ordered him to shave his beard for safety reasons. However, he previously had an accommodation from shaving during his deployment aboard the U.S.S Theodore Roosevelt. But, on April 14th, his chief ordered him to shave on April 16th and then continue to regularly. A federal judge defended Di Liscia’s religious rights and temporarily postponed the department from being able to force him to shave. The court addressed the burden that this order imposes on Di Liscia, and argues that there is no substantial government interest that justifies the burden, nor is it the least restrictive means. Therefore, it is unconstitutional. 

    The judge argued that the order was a violation of Di Liscia’s free exercise of religion and imposed a substantial burden on his beliefs. Di Liscia is a devout Chassidic Jew and has practiced his religion before and throughout his service. Orthodox Judaism emphasizes the importance of observing ancient laws and customs that are in the code of Jewish Law. In particular, this practice encourages devotion to engage in observance and open pity of their faith everyday. One of the codes of Jewish Law in the Torah states “Do not cut off the hair on the sides of your head. Do not have off the edges of your beard.” Furthermore, the leading medieval commentator on the Hebrew Bible stated “as a practical matter, since the exact areas of these edges are not clearly defined, it is forbidden to shave the entire beard...the Torah forbids one to destroy it and shave it.” (8) Therefore Chassisidic Jews restrain from shaving or trimming their beards in order to follow in accordance to God’s will. Di Liscia is an adherent to Chassidic Judaism and has maintained the tradition of a beard because it is a holy action. The act of a beard is not solely one of spiritual modesty, but also an indication of maturity. In order to serve God, they are compelled by their religious beliefs. Therefore, the order for Di Liscia to shave his beard, a symbol of his religious obligations, imposes a substantial burden and is a violation of his religious rights. 
In order for the burden to be constitutional, the military policy must be furthering a compelling governmental interest and be the least restrictive means of furthering that interest Sherbert v. Verner (1963). In regards to the government’s interest, the Navy argues that a beard “reduces safe and effective wear and operation of protective equipment, specifically gas masks and respirators.” But, the negative consequences of an ineffective seal from protective equipment is quite low. Consequently, the Court argues that there is a lack of a sincere compelling interest because they allow beards for many other reasons, and have done so for decades. Thousands of sailors have beards for medical reasons and the Navy has no restrictions on them nor have those permissions created a lack of safety. No legitimate interest exists if the Navy claims to permit medical exemptions, but not religious exemptions. Furthermore, there cannot be any compelling reason if the US Army and Airforce permit religious beards and they are allowed in militaries, police, and fire departments around the world. The Court also rules that this order is not the least restrictive means of furthering the Navy’s interest because although some beards may not work with standard-issue masks, there are other masks that are capable of providing protection. Overall, since defendants fail to meet the burden of a substantial interest, their order is unconstitutional. 
While the Court has only provided a temporary reprieve to the US Navy’s order for Di Liscia to shave his religious beard, they ought to permanently allow religious accommodations. The US Navy cannot impose a religious burden when there is no legitimate interest. The Court ought to rule in accordance with Holt v. Hobbs (2015) which argued that it is a violation of a prison inmate’s rights of free exercise to require them to shave their beard if there is no substantial interest. Furthermore, religious beard accommodations ought to be in the US Navy’s interest because it would foster diversity and boost morale. By allowing these accommodations, the US is exemplifying that they embrace and unite religious ethnic pluralism Goldman v. Weinberger (1986). It would also only strengthen their interests and contribute to good order because studies have shown that “people who practice their religion have higher levels of well being.” With the US Navy representing the morals of the US and being a symbol for protecting citizen’s rights, they ought to provide religious accommodations for soldiers and provide rights that the Constitution protects.