GOLDMAN v. WEINBERGER 475 U.S. 503 (1986)

Goldman, an orthodox Jew and ordained rabbi, was forbidden from wearing a yarmulke while on duty as an Air Force officer. The prohibition was pursuant to an Air Force regulation enjoining the wearing of headgear indoors "except by armed security police." Goldman sued, claiming that the prohibition violated his first amendment right to the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court disagreed, 5–4.

Writing for the majority, Justice william h. rehnquist declined to require a government showing of either a compelling state interest or a rational basis to justify the yarmulke prohibition. Rehnquist argued that the military must be accorded wide-ranging deference by the courts in order to carry out its mission; hence he refused to second-guess the Air Force's "professional judgment" about how to maintain a uniform dress code. Rehnquist used similar reasoning a year later to uphold the power of prison authorities to restrict the free-exercise rights of prisoners in o ' lone v. estate of shabazz (1987).

Justices william j. brennan, harry a. blackmun, and sandra day o'connor each filed separate dissents. All three believed that the Court should have attempted to weigh Goldman's free-exercise rights against the government interest at stake; they further agreed that the government interest should give way in this case because the military had made no attempt to show a reasonable basis for the regulation as applied to Goldman. They noted, in particular, that Goldman had been allowed to wear his yarmulke by the Air Force for almost four years before the practice was challenged.

John G. West, Jr.
(1992)

(see also: Armed Forces; Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith.)