Singh v. Carter
168 F. Supp. 3d 216
D.D.C.2016Background
- Captain Simratpal Singh, a Sikh Army officer, seeks a religious accommodation to wear his faith articles (turban, unshorn hair, beard) while serving.
- The Army orders Singh to undergo several days of specialized helmet fitting and gas-mask testing at a cost of about $32,925 to assess compatibility with his faith.
- Singh has been granted interim accommodations previously; other soldiers with long hair or beards or medical exceptions have not faced this level of testing.
- Singh passed the standard gas mask test but is nonetheless required to undertake additional testing as part of the accommodation review.
- ASA Debra Wada issued interim accommodations and then extended them pending a final decision; the testing order prompted this TRO action.
- The court addresses RFRA-based challenges to the Army’s testing order and ultimately grants a TRO preventing non-standard testing during the litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RFRA jurisdiction and exhaustion | RFRA provides a right and no exhaustion required. | Military decisions are nonjusticiable and require exhaustion or administrative remedies. | Court has jurisdiction; RFRA applies without exhaustion requirement. |
| Substantial burden on religious exercise | Specialized helmet and gas-mask testing imposes a substantial burden on Singh's Sikh faith. | Testing would occur with Singh’s articles of faith intact and does not burden religious practice. | Testing constitutes a substantial burden on Singh's free exercise under RFRA. |
| Least restrictive means | A study or less burdensome alternative could satisfy safety concerns without targeting Singh. | Testing is necessary for safety and individualized accommodation findings. | Testing is not shown to be the least restrictive means; alternative study is more fitting; plaintiff succeeds on RFRA claim at this stage. |
| Irreparable harm | Discrimination and coercive testing create irreparable harm to Singh's rights. | No irreparable harm beyond the burden of the testing itself. | Irreparable harm established due to discrimination and infringement of religious rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (U.S. 2005) (context matters in free-exercise challenges under RFRA)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (U.S. 2015) (RFRA applies; internal balancing of interests; underinclusive policies scrutinized)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (injunctions require likelihood of irreparable harm and likely success on the merits)
- Adair v. England, 183 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D.D.C. 2002) (military personnel decisions may be reviewed when constitutional rights are implicated)
- Priests for Life v. Burwell, 772 F.3d 229 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (testing for religious accommodations and RFRA burdens discussed)
- Brannum v. Lake, 311 F.3d 1127 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (review of military policies under constitutional challenges)
- O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (U.S. 2006) (RFRA burden-shifting framework explained)
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Benefiente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (U.S. 2006) (RFRA burdens and proving compelling interest and least restrictive means)