185 F.Supp.3d 201
D.D.C.2015Background
- Iknoor Singh, an observant Sikh and Hofstra student, seeks to enroll in Army ROTC while keeping unshorn hair, beard, and turban; Army denied his requested religious accommodation.
- ROTC enrollment (as an enrolled cadet) triggers Army grooming/uniform rules; participating students/auditors are not subject to those rules.
- Singh had participated as an unenrolled student but could not enroll unless he agreed to comply with AR 670-1; after litigation began, the Army processed then denied his accommodation request (McConville letter).
- Army relies on interests in unit cohesion, discipline, officer credibility, readiness, and safety (gas-mask fit) to deny the exemption; Army noted prior exceptions but distinguished them.
- The Army routinely grants many exceptions (e.g., >100,000 medical shaving profiles since 2007) and has previously accommodated several Sikh service members who served successfully with beards/turbans.
- Court consolidated preliminary-injunction and merits; it found RFRA applies and defendants conceded the denial substantially burdens Singh’s religious exercise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RFRA applies and Army’s denial substantially burdens Singh | Singh: RFRA applies to Army denial; denial forces choice between religious practice and ROTC enrollment | Army initially argued its rules didn’t apply to civilians but conceded RFRA applies to the denial | Held: RFRA applies; denial conceded to be a substantial burden |
| Whether courts must defer to military judgment under RFRA | Singh: RFRA’s strict scrutiny applies; court must assess application to the particular claimant despite military deference | Army: longstanding deference to military decisions should be decisive (Goldman, Orloff) | Held: Court must give respect but not unquestioning deference; RFRA strict scrutiny governs, guided by Holt v. Hobbs |
| Whether Army showed denial furthers a compelling interest as applied to Singh | Singh: Army failed to prove tailored, compelling harm given numerous accommodations and prior Sikh exceptions | Army: Denial furthers compelling interests in cohesion, discipline, readiness, safety, and officer corps credibility | Held: Court found Army did not meet its burden to show denial furthers compelling interests as applied to Singh |
| Whether denial is the least restrictive means | Singh: Less restrictive alternatives (temporary/revocable accommodation, special masks, monitoring) exist and have been used | Army: No workable less-restrictive means for officer training; deployment/operational risks and future uncertainty justify denial | Held: Court held denial is not least restrictive; temporary/revocable accommodations and other measures render Army’s approach insufficient under RFRA |
Key Cases Cited
- Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015) (RLUIPA/RFRA requires focused, claimant-specific strict scrutiny and rejects unquestioning deference to institutional officials)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014) (RFRA restores Sherbert/Yoder strict scrutiny for substantial burdens on religious exercise)
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) (government must show compelling interest as applied to particular claimant)
- Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83 (1953) (courts generally defer to military judgments)
- Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986) (pre-RFRA decision applying deferential review to military uniform rules)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (strict scrutiny requires that laws not be underinclusive relative to asserted compelling interests)
- Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) (articulating compelling-interest/least-restrictive-means test later codified by RFRA)
- Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (application of strict scrutiny to religious practice affecting state interests)
- Priests for Life v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 772 F.3d 229 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (RFRA/related statute interpretation regarding substantial burden)