George Ricks is a 59-year-old man who has spent the duration of his life taking care of his four children, working in construction, and studying the Bible. In order to provide for his family, George Ricks attempted to register with the Idaho Board of Contractors in 2014 to become an independent contractor, as it is a misdemeanor to work as an independent contractor without registering with the state. George Ricks asked to use another means of identification other than his social security number for his registration, such as his birth certificate, as it is against his religious beliefs to be required to use a “government-issued identification number”. Although this is not a very common religious belief, it is recognized and comes from an interpretation of
Revelation 13:16-18 in the Bible. Foreign residents that apply for the same registration do not have social security numbers and their registrations are approved.
Despite other accommodations that were made, Ricks’ willingness to provide other means of identification, and the Board’s ability to get the same information from their state records, the request was still denied. Ricks then filed a lawsuit against the Idaho Board of Contractors in 2016 on the basis that the refusal to accommodate his religious beliefs is a violation of his First Amendment right to free exercise.
In the case
United States v. Ballard (1944) a precedent was established that the truth or falsity of a religious belief is not up for the Court as long as it is sincerely held. The state courts had no question or doubt about Ricks’ sincerity in his beliefs. The intent of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment was to protect religious minorities, no matter how uncommon they are, and this belief is recognized and sincere. The actions that were taken by the Idaho Board of Contractors not only put a substantial burden on a hardworking family man, but they set a dangerous precedent allowing the government to use facial neutrality as an excuse to limit the free exercise of religion for their benefit.
There is a federal law that provides additional funding to the Board of Contractors if they collect contractors’ social security numbers. This is not a standard practice or mandatory requirement; it is an incentive. The intent of the law is to assist the government in tracking delinquent fathers. Further, the compelling government interest may be the intent of the law, but the compelling state interest of Idaho is working to secure additional funding. With that being said, the question this case asks is this: Does the Idaho Board of Contractors’ refusal to register applicants that seek religious accommodations violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?
Both the Idaho District Court and the Idaho Court of Appeals ruled against Ricks, and after appealing to the Supreme Court in July 2019, the Court denied certiorari in July 2021. The state courts relied on
Employment Division v. Smith (1990) to say that requiring a social security number would be neutral and generally applicable, so the government is not required to make any accommodations if religious exercise is burdened by the law. This case would bring that precedent into question and the courts made the decision to side with the state of Idaho.
I do not agree with the decisions of the lower courts because I believe that George Ricks should not have been put in a position to choose between exercising his religious beliefs and providing for his family. When the government puts someone in a position to choose between their religious beliefs and making a living to provide for their family, the burden is no longer a simple and indirect byproduct of a neutral law that allows the government to avoid responsibility. Beyond that, I don’t believe that the federal law is neutral and generally applicable. Those who have objections to using Social Security numbers as a means for government identification, most often object because of their religious beliefs. In Bowen v. Roy (1986) Justice O’Connor wrote that even though the government has a legitimate interest, they did not show that other means of identification wouldn’t suffice for the small number of applicants with religious objections to supplying their Social Security numbers and an administrative inconvenience is not sufficient to justify a burden on free exercise.
The federal law may be facially neutral and have a legitimate interest in tracking delinquent fathers, but it is not neutral in practice and has a disparate impact on religious minorities. Denying the registration without obtaining a Social Security number directly from Ricks is certainly not the least restrictive means to achieve the state’s goals. George Ricks is a 59-year-old man who has spent most of his life providing for his four children, he is not a high-risk candidate for becoming a delinquent father or fleeing from his responsibilities to his family. If the First Amendment doesn’t protect the religious exercise of an upstanding man like George Ricks, who does it protect?
Sources:
2 comments:
This is a very interesting case, especially because it involves policies at both the state and federal levels. It is also interesting, that this is the only state that requires individuals to submit their social security number. I agree with your perspective that he should be granted a religious exemption. He has shown to be sincere in his beliefs and is willing to cooperate by providing other means of government identification. For these reasons, he should be granted an exemption to uphold his First Amendment rights under the Constitution.
These types of cases are always difficult for me. I have a hard time understanding the need for an exemption but at the end of the day, that's one of the reasons we have the First Amendment. It protects religious beliefs that others don't understand or agree with. Rick is not causing any real harm by providing a different form of identification and the court cannot judge the sincerity, so there is no reason why the exemption shouldn't be granted. If he were asking to give no form of identification this would be a different case altogether. I suppose you could make the argument that granting this exemption could be a slippery slope to someone asking to withhold identification but I don't think that is a good reason to not grant the exemption in this case.
Post a Comment