Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Goldman v. Weinberger

Supreme Court of the United States · 1986 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentFree Exercise ClauseMilitary deferenceFree Exercisemilitaryuniform regulationsdeference

Facts

Goldman, an Orthodox Jew and Air Force officer serving as a clinical psychologist, wore a yarmulke while in uniform on base. Air Force Regulation 35-10 prohibited indoor headgear except in limited circumstances, and after a complaint following Goldman's court-martial testimony, his commander ordered him not to wear the yarmulke and later extended the prohibition even in the hospital. Goldman was reprimanded, warned of possible court-martial, and denied permission to report in civilian clothes pending resolution. He claimed that applying the regulation to him violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

Issue

Does the Free Exercise Clause require the Air Force to make an exception to its uniform dress regulation so that an Orthodox Jewish officer may wear a yarmulke while in uniform, despite the military's asserted interest in uniformity and discipline?

Rule

When military regulations are challenged on First Amendment grounds, courts apply a highly deferential form of review rather than ordinary civilian constitutional scrutiny. Courts must give great deference to the professional judgment of military authorities about the relative importance of military interests, and the First Amendment does not require the military to accommodate religious practices when the military reasonably and evenhandedly regulates dress in the interest of its perceived need for uniformity.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lieutenant Aaron Mehta, a naval officer stationed in San Diego, wears a small religious bracelet over the sleeve of his duty uniform because his faith requires it to remain visible. A Navy regulation bars any visible jewelry other than rank insignia while on duty, and the service explains that standardized appearance promotes unity and discipline.

If Aaron challenges the regulation under the Free Exercise Clause, what is the strongest argument for upholding the regulation?

Explanation. The majority held that review of military regulations challenged on First Amendment grounds is far more deferential than civilian review. Courts must give great deference to military authorities' professional judgment about military interests, and the First Amendment does not require an exception when the military reasonably and evenhandedly regulates dress to serve its perceived need for uniformity.