## Facts

- An Orthodox Jewish couple married in Israel in 1983 under a ketubah and had one child.
- The wife filed a civil divorce action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part.
- The parties substantially resolved the civil aspects of the divorce, but the husband refused to provide a Jewish religious bill of divorce (a “get”).
- The wife sought equitable relief requiring the husband to deliver a get so she could obtain a religious divorce and remarry within her faith.
- The husband opposed any civil order compelling a get, asserting that the decision should be governed by Jewish law and, in his view, be guided by a rabbinical tribunal (Beth Din).
- The record reflected the husband’s refusal was not used to extract financial or custodial advantage in the civil litigation; he sought reconciliation and submitted the matter to the Beth Din.
- The matter also involved the husband’s counsel moving to withdraw based on counsel’s asserted religious constraints relating to participation in get-related pressure.

## Issues

1. Whether a civil court may, consistent with the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, order an Orthodox Jewish husband to provide a get as part of matrimonial equitable relief.
2. Whether compelling delivery of a get would require unconstitutional judicial involvement in defining or evaluating religious doctrine and practice.
3. Whether counsel’s religious objections justified withdrawal from representation under applicable professional-responsibility standards.

## Decision

- The court denied the wife’s request for an order compelling the husband to provide a get.
- The court concluded that coercing the husband to perform the religious act of delivering a get would violate the Free Exercise Clause because the requested order lacked a secular purpose and secular effect and would coerce religious conduct.
- The court rejected characterizations that delivery of a get could be treated as nonreligious for constitutional purposes, reasoning that doing so would force the court to decide what is “religious” within Judaism.
- The court distinguished cases in which withholding a get functioned as leverage or civil misconduct (such as bargaining for economic advantage), finding that rationale inapplicable where the refusal was grounded in religious position rather than civil extortion.
- On counsel’s motion to withdraw, the court treated the matter under the rules governing attorney withdrawal and duties in ongoing litigation rather than allowing withdrawal based solely on anticipated religious difficulty.

## Legal Principles

- A civil court may not compel a party to perform a religious ritual act where the state action’s purpose and effect are to alter religious status or remove a religious disability.
- Free Exercise limits are implicated when a requested judicial order directly coerces religiously significant conduct, not merely when it has incidental effects on religious practice.
- Courts may not avoid Free Exercise constraints by reclassifying a disputed religious obligation as “secular,” because that would require prohibited judicial determinations about religious doctrine.
- Civil courts may adjudicate the civil incidents of marriage (e.g., dissolution, property, support, custody) but lack authority to mandate compliance with religious requirements to change religious marital status.
- Prior condemnation of withholding a get as civil leverage does not itself supply a constitutional basis to order a get where the refusal is not tied to civil bargaining or misconduct.

## Conclusion

The Family Part granted civil divorce relief but refused to order delivery of a get, holding that compelling a religious divorce instrument would coerce religious conduct and entangle the court in religious determinations in violation of the Free Exercise Clause.


Aflalo v. Aflalo, 295 N.J. Super. 527, 685 A.2d 523 (Ch. Div. 1996)