## Facts

- S. Simcha Goldman, an Orthodox Jewish Air Force officer and clinical psychologist, wore a yarmulke as required by his religious practice.
- Air Force Regulation 35-10 generally barred wearing headgear indoors while in uniform, with limited exceptions (e.g., security police on duty).
- After a complaint, Goldman was ordered not to wear the yarmulke while in uniform; the order was later extended to prohibit wearing it even inside the military hospital.
- Goldman sued, alleging that enforcing the regulation against him violated the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause.
- The district court enjoined enforcement of the regulation against Goldman.
- The D.C. Circuit reversed, and the Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether applying an Air Force uniform regulation prohibiting indoor headgear to bar a yarmulke violates the Free Exercise Clause.
2. What level of judicial scrutiny applies to Free Exercise claims challenging military dress and appearance regulations.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the D.C. Circuit, upholding the regulation as applied to Goldman.
- The Court held that the First Amendment does not require the military to accommodate the wearing of a yarmulke when military authorities determine it would detract from the uniformity sought by dress regulations.
- The Court treated the regulation as facially neutral and generally applicable within the military setting, and deferred to the professional judgment of military officials regarding discipline and cohesion.
- A concurrence agreed that constitutional protection of religious exercise does not create an absolute right to religious apparel in all circumstances, particularly in the military.
- Dissents argued that the Court gave excessive deference and should have required stronger justification for a substantial burden on religious exercise.

## Legal Principles

- Constitutional review of military regulations is highly deferential compared to review of analogous civilian restrictions, especially where the military asserts interests in discipline, cohesion, and uniformity.
- The Free Exercise Clause does not constitutionally compel accommodation of visible religious apparel in uniform when the military reasonably enforces neutral dress rules to maintain uniform appearance.
- Courts generally should not second-guess military judgments about the relationship between uniform standards and readiness absent a clear constitutional violation.
- Legislative or policy accommodation of religious practice in the armed forces may be appropriate, but it is not necessarily constitutionally required.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld enforcement of an Air Force indoor headgear prohibition against an Orthodox Jewish officer’s yarmulke, concluding that the Free Exercise Clause does not require the military to exempt religious apparel from neutral uniform regulations when the military asserts a reasonable need for uniformity and discipline.


Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986)