475 U.S. 503 (1986)
S. Simcha Goldman, an Orthodox Jew and ordained rabbi, was commissioned as a captain in the United States Air Force in 1981 after completing his Ph.D. in clinical psychology through the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program.1 He was assigned to serve as a clinical psychologist at the mental health clinic on March Air Force Base in Riverside, California.2 Upon commissioning, Goldman received the uniform clothing allowance and purchased the three standard Air Force uniforms.3 He completed basic officers training and performed his duties satisfactorily at the base hospital while complying with all Air Force regulations until the events at issue.4
In 1973 Goldman had entered the scholarship program and remained on inactive reserve status during his studies at Loyola University of Chicago.5 After three years he entered active service to fulfill the program's service obligation.6 Until April 1981 Goldman wore his yarmulke on base without interference, remaining near his duty station indoors and covering it with his service cap when outdoors.7 In April 1981, after testifying as a defense witness at a court-martial while wearing his yarmulke but not his service cap, opposing counsel complained to Colonel Joseph Gregory, the Hospital Commander, that the practice violated Air Force Regulation 35-10.89
Colonel Gregory ordered Goldman not to wear the yarmulke while on duty or in uniform outside the hospital.10 Goldman refused the order.11 After his attorney protested to the Air Force General Counsel, Gregory revised the order to prohibit the yarmulke even inside the hospital.12 Goldman’s request to report for duty in civilian clothing was denied.13 The next day he received a formal letter of reprimand warning that continued violation could lead to court-martial, and Gregory withdrew a prior recommendation that Goldman’s application to extend his active service be approved.14
Goldman sued the Secretary of Defense and others in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that AFR 35-10 as applied to him infringed his First Amendment rights.15 The District Court issued a preliminary injunction and, after a full hearing, permanently enjoined the Air Force from enforcing the regulation against Goldman or penalizing him for wearing the yarmulke.16 The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed.17 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.18
Whether an Air Force regulation prohibiting the wearing of a yarmulke by an Orthodox Jewish officer while in uniform violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not prohibit the military from enforcing uniform dress regulations that incidentally burden religious practices when the military's professional judgment determines that uniformity is necessary to maintain discipline and esprit de corps.19 Courts must give great deference to the professional judgment of military authorities concerning the relative importance of a particular military interest, as the military is a specialized society separate from civilian society where the subordination of individual desires to the needs of the service is essential.20
No.21 The Air Force regulation does not violate the Free Exercise Clause.22 Goldman is an Orthodox Jew whose religious beliefs require him to wear a yarmulke, and he was sincere in his observance as shown by his consistent practice until the complaint.23 However, AFR 35-10 mandates standardized uniforms and prohibits headgear indoors except in limited circumstances, reflecting the Air Force's considered judgment that uniformity encourages subordination of personal preferences and fosters hierarchical unity essential for military effectiveness.24 The District Court found no interference with duties, but the Court of Appeals and this Court defer to the military's judgment that exceptions for visible religious apparel would undermine the sense of unity, even if the yarmulke is unobtrusive.25
The First Amendment does not require the military to accommodate such practices when they conflict with the uniform policy.26
The Air Force regulation prohibiting the wearing of a yarmulke by an Orthodox Jewish officer while in uniform does not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.27
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment, emphasizing the narrowness of the holding and the strong interest in uniformity of dress and appearance.28 He noted that the interest is sufficiently compelling to justify the regulation's application to Goldman.29 Stevens highlighted the danger that allowing exceptions based on a multifactored test would involve the decisionmaker in evaluating the sincerity and character of the requester's faith, potentially favoring mainstream religions like Orthodox Judaism over others such as Sikh or Rastafarian practices.
He stressed that the visibility standard is neutral and objective, avoiding distinctions among faiths, and joined the Court's opinion because an exception for yarmulkes would depart from the principle of uniformity.
Justice Brennan dissented, arguing that the Court abdicated its role as protector of individual liberties by giving uncritical deference to military assertions.30 He maintained that the Air Force failed to provide a credible explanation of how wearing a yarmulke would interfere with discipline or uniformity, as the District Court found no adverse effect.31 Brennan pointed out that the dress code itself allows some individuality and religious items that are nonvisible, and the visibility test favors majority religions while burdening minority practices like wearing a yarmulke.32
He concluded that under any meaningful review, Goldman should prevail because the regulation sets up an absolute bar to fulfilling a religious duty without sufficient justification.33
Justice Blackmun dissented, joining Brennan but focusing on the failure to show cumulative costs of accommodations.34 He noted that Goldman wore the yarmulke for years without adverse effect, as found by the District Court.35 Blackmun argued that the Air Force did not demonstrate that granting the exemption would impair military readiness or that a significant number of requests would follow that could not be denied on neutral grounds.36
He would require the government to show substantial harm before denying the free exercise claim, even in the military context.37
Justice O'Connor dissented, advocating for a balancing test even in the military context where the government must show an unusually important interest and that the exemption would cause substantial harm.38 She found that the Air Force's need for uniformity is important but contradicted by its own exceptions allowing some individuality and nonvisible religious items.39 O'Connor noted the District Court's finding of no objections until the court-martial incident and concluded that the policy must yield to Goldman's sincere religious belief because the asserted threat to discipline was unfounded in this case.