Legal Opinion · Dissent

United States v. Sterling

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Decided August 10, 2016No. 15-0510 and 16-0223/MCPublished

1Dissent

Judge OHLSON,

dissenting.

In my view, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb— 2000bb-4 (2012), provides the men and women of our nation's armed forces with the presumptive right to fully, openly, and spontaneously engage in religious exercise, This right extends to sincere religious conduct that is not specifically inquired by, or deemed by judges to be important to, the tenets of a semcememberis faith. Further, servieemembers who are court-martialed for sincere religious conduct may invoke the protections afforded by RFRA even if they did not obtain the permission of…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Lamie v. United States TrusteeSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security DivisionSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. United States v. SeegerSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  4. Hernandez v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  5. Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União Do VegetalSupreme Court of the United States · 2006

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API