Home » Take Action » Become a Student Activist » Case of the Month Archives » August 2002
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Sultaana Lakiana Myke Freeman v. State of Florida
1) What is religious freedom exactly?
Religious freedom is guaranteed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof " The Fourteenth Amendment extended the requirements of the First Amendment to state and local governments. The opening two clauses the of the First Amendment - the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause - deal precisely with the issue of what the government can and cannot do with respect to religion. The Establishment Clause - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..." - has generally come to mean that government cannot authorize a church, cannot pass laws that aid or favor one religion over another, cannot pass laws that favor religious belief over non belief, cannot force a person to profess a belief. In short, government must be neutral toward religion and cannot be entangled with any religion.
In general, the Free Exercise Clause - "Congress shall make no law - prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - prohibits the government from interfering with individuals' rights to worship as they choose. Together these principles protect our freedom to practice any religion or no religion at all. But as noted in the Legal Issues section, the courts have interpreted the clauses in numerous ways. The tension lies in the fact that on the one hand, government must maintain neutrality as outlined in the Establishment Clause, but it must also accommodate religious practices as required by the Free Exercise Clause.
Florida's Religious Freedom Restoration Act was implemented in 1998 in order to apply First Amendment law as it existed before the Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith. That is, a state law may burden the exercise of religious beliefs only when the state has a compelling interest to do so and the manner in which it burdens such exercise is the least restrictive means possible.
2) What standard does the court use to decide whether the state can restrict a person's religious freedom?
The First Amendment contains the Free Exercise clause, which prohibits government from regulating religious beliefs. The Free Exercise clause, however, does not prevent government from regulating or restraining certain religious conduct that acts against "peace and good order" of society. If a law has been enacted that expressly violates a religion's constitutionally protected freedom to practice, then the courts must determine if that law in question (a) serves a compelling government interest and (b) uses the least restrictive way possible to burden a person from practicing their religion. In Florida, for example, the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act compels the state to show a "compelling interest" to burden someone's religious practice. If a religious act violates some societal norm maintaining peace and order, then that particular act could be restrained or restricted. For example, if there was a religion that as part of its tenet mandated that people drive down public roads at 80mph as part of a sacred induction ceremony, it can arguably be said that in exercising their religion, those individuals may cause serious injury and even death to other drivers on the road. Using this scenario as an example, the government has a compelling interest in protecting the safety of all drivers by enforcing laws that prohibit speeding and reckless driving. However, when regulating the practices of such religion to ensure that its followers are abiding by laws, government must also use the least restrictive means possible so that followers are not completely denied their constitutional right to practice religion. In doing so, government may suggest alternatives that would allow followers to continue to participate in this sacred induction without jeopardizing the lives of themselves and others.
3) What if you're a follower of a non-traditional religion such as Santeria or Wicca, do you have the same rights as people who are followers of more mainstream religious groups?
Yes. The ACLU believes that the fundamental principle of content neutrality must be applied when examining religious freedom claims. The government cannot apply laws that discriminate against certain groups and activities on the basis of their beliefs and ideas. For example, a policy that permits students of traditional faiths to wear and display their religious symbols while prohibiting students of non-traditional faiths from wearing and displaying their religious symbols would be considered discriminatory and unconstitutional. A similar case arose in a public school in the Michigan school district. Crystal Seifferly, a seventeen-year old honor student at Lincoln Park High School, is a member of the Wiccan religion. As a tenant of her religion she wears a Pentagram (a five-point star) that symbolizes air, fire, water, earth and spirit, which is a representation of her religious dedication. In 1998, the principal of Lincoln Park High School implemented a Gang/Cult Policy that prohibited students at Lincoln Park High School from belonging to groups and engaging in activities that the principal considers "inappropriate and unacceptable in the school setting." The policy specifically prohibited students from wearing pentacles. The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan then sued the suburban Detroit school district of Lincoln Park for violating Crystal's religious rights. The school district later settled with the ACLU and changed its policy to allow her to outwardly wear the symbol of her religion.
4) Considering the events of September 11, wouldn't it be negligent not to ask a person to remove an article of their clothing that covers an identifiable part if their body such as their face even if it is religious?
All citizens of the United States are protected under the Constitution and our First Amendment right is one of the most fundamental of them all. Religious practices are extremely broad, ranging from wearing certain articles of clothing to surgically removing body parts. Although some religious practices may be controversial, it is the liberty we enjoy as members of this nation to exercise our religion freely without overt government restriction. Courts, and other states, have long recognized the fundamental Christian belief that the Second Commandment prohibits having a picture taken and have thus granted drivers' licenses to those Christians who hold that fundamental belief. Therefore, in Sultaana Freeman's case, forcing her to violate her own religion by removing an article of clothing goes against our nation's religious freedom principles.
Having her picture without the Niqab on a driver's license would not help identify her because she always wears the Niqab in public. Her sincerely held religious belief would be seriously burdened a second time if she were forced to remove the Niqab to establish that she was the individual on the license.
