|
UPDATED LAW FIRM WEBSITE
With this email, we also are pleased to announce the launch of our new and improved website -
www.lawandfreedom.com.
We began our website in 1999, and it held up pretty well for 16 years. However, the new, dynamic website has numerous improvements - including an
improved search feature, revised categories of areas of practice (e.g., firearms, healthcare, etc.), favorite quotations, and static links to individual
posts. It includes our 97 U.S. Supreme Court briefs, petitions, etc. The tags feature allows you to find, for example, all briefs discussing the
Fourth Amendment. As our friend former Congressman Steve Stockman has said, "If you want to take a course in the U.S. Constitution, just spend some
time reading the briefs and articles available on the website of the Olson law firm."
We hope you like it. Please let us know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements.
|
Brief Filed Defending Marine's Religious Rights
January 5, 2016
United States v. Sterling
(Read brief here)
Our firm filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces an amicus brief defending the right of a United States Marine to post small signs
containing Bible verses at her work station.
Marine Lance Corporal Monifa Sterling printed and taped a paraphrase of Isaiah 54:17 at three places around her workspace: "No weapon formed against me
shall prosper." The three locations were designed to represent the Trinity, that is, the three persons of the Godhead - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Her Staff Sergeant twice ordered Sterling to take the display down. Sterling twice refused, explaining that the signs were based on her religion, meant
for her alone, and not meant to offend anyone. Sterling was court-martialed for several offenses including disobeying the orders to remove her signs.
Sterling appealed her conviction on the grounds that the order to remove her signs violated her First Amendment Free Exercise rights and the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act.
In keeping with good amicus practice, our brief made an interesting argument that, remarkably, neither party highlighted. We contended that the order to
Sterling to take down her display violated just about every policy, procedure, standard, and rule that the Department of Defense and the Department of the
Navy (of which the Marine Corps is a part) has put in place to govern religious exercise issues.
First, the government had faulted Sterling for failing to apply for a formal "religious accommodation." We pointed out that another federal court had
addressed that precise issue some years ago (in a case litigated by one of the lawyers in our firm), determining that the military is required to follow
its religious accommodation rules regardless of whether a service member formally applies for an accommodation.
We also noted that, contrary to Navy rules, Sterling's Staff Sergeant failed to involve her commanding officer in the decision to order Sterling to take
down her signs. Additionally, we pointed out that Sterling's chain of command should have, but did not, involve a military chaplain in the process, since
chaplains are the "Navy's only trained professional religious accommodators." Finally, we argued, Sterling's superiors failed to follow Navy rules by
failing to find alternative means for Sterling to exercise her religion.
Next, we argued that the court below upheld the order to Sterling not because the content of the signs was problematic, but specifically "because" the
signs were religious in nature. This violated clear Supreme Court precedent that the government may not "prohibit[] conduct because it is undertaken for
religious reasons."
Finally, the court below alleged that Sterling's signs weren't religious exercise, since they were not "part of a system of religious belief." Even if
that flawed conclusion were true, we argued, federal law protects more than just religious belief, including anything that "reflect[s] the ... conscience,
moral principles, or religious beliefs." And even if, as the court below assumed, Sterling's actions were simply her acting out against her superiors,
then the Navy should have considered her activity a protest, in which case Navy rules say that it can only be prohibited if it poses a "clear danger" to
unit cohesion - a far cry from the court's "imagin[ings]" that something "may" or "could" result.
Our brief was filed on behalf of: Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, U.S. Justice Foundation, Faith and Action, Public Advocate of the United
States, Inc., Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Institute on the Constitution, E. Ray Moore, Chaplain, Lt. Colonel, U.S. Army Reserve Ret.,
and Capt. George P. Byrum, CHC, USN Ret.
|
