User:Jry96/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Find multiple sources. Outline them in my own words, with citations to the original. Then write from my own understanding and outline, citing frequently.

Article Selection
I will be editing the Wiki Article on Police v. City of Newark, a Free Exercise case from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. This case is notable in part because it addresses legal questions that have not been directly answered by the Supreme Court, but the case's author, Samuel Alito, is now an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

I plan to add background information regarding the legal context in which this decision sits. Specifically, I plan to describe the main legal question presented by the case (how many exceptions are acceptable for a law to still qualify as neutral and generally applicable under Employment Division v. Smith), and also describe the different answers that at least one other circuit (other than the Third) has offered.

Re-Drafting
Police v. City of Newark, 170 F.3d 359 (3d Cir. 1999), was a case challenging an internal order of the City of Newark Police Department requiring its officers to be clean-shaven. The order contained two exceptions, one for undercover police officers and one for medical conditions, such as psuedofolliculitis barbae. The plaintiffs, Officers Faruq Abdul–Aziz and Shakoor Mustafa, were Sunni Muslim Newark Police Officers. They argued that the order violated their Free Exercise Rights under the First Amendment by requiring them to shave their beards in violation of their religious beliefs. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey enjoined the police department from enforcing the order against the plaintiffs.

In an opinion written by then Judge Samuel Alito, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the internal order merited strict scrutiny and that the denial of an exemption to the plaintiffs violated the Free Exercise Clause. The court reasoned that the exemption for undercover officers was not problematic, as it did not undermine the purpose behind the order, which was uniformity of appearance among officers. The medical exemption, however, did frustrate uniformity. This suggested that in the department's view a secular reason (such as a medical condition) for wearing a beard was important enough to forego uniformity, but a religious reason was not. Because the department had preferred the secular to the religious, heightened scrutiny was necessary. The decision was scrutinized during the Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination.

Legal Context

In Employment Division v. Smith, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Free Exercise Clause does not require accommodations for "neutral law[s] of general applicability" that burden religious exercise. One question not answered by Smith was how many exemptions did not define "neutral" or "general applicability," Police v. City of Newark is oneSmith

The District Court ruled in their favor, and it was affirmed by the Third Circuit, which found that the city had failed to provide a substantial justification for refusing to make accommodation for religious belief in this policy.


 * 1) Overview: Municipal police have “clean shaven” policy w/ 2 exceptions: 1 for undercover cops (if undercover, not really exception b/c doesn’t undermine purpose of rule), 1 for medical necessity. Muslims denied religious exemption. Ps win b/c dept. makes medical exceptions => sufficiently suggestive of discriminatory intent so as to trigger heightened scrutiny
 * 2) Legal Impact: 1 exception is enough to avoid Smith, i.e., 1 exception => law ceases to be NGA
 * 3) Logic: Sherbert - if there are exceptions religion has to be granted equal weight w/ secular reason. If gov’t going to say secular reason is important enough to overcome gen’l interest but religious motivations are not, must w/stand heightened scrutiny
 * 4) Context v. CA9: 9th Cir other extreme: all laws have exceptions, so there can be exceptions. So serious FE protection only exists if religion is only thing singled out. Understand NGA as flushing out hostility to religion. No animus toward religion to exempt folliculitis. Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm'n, 165 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 1999), vacated on ripeness grounds, 220 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
 * 5) Alito specific: Alito says so long as anything else is exempted, R gets highest protection. Not about hostility to religion, it’s about compensating for gov’t’s inability/incompetence to judge that religion is anything less than important. Why isn’t religion just as important as that one exception?

Sources for this project:

 * 1) Religion and the Constitution, Michael McConnell, Fourth Edition (Crown)
 * 2) Text of the case: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3409379191404713170
 * 3) Merric J. Polloway, Constitutional Law-First Amendment-Free Exercise Clause Forbids Police Departments to Discipline Officers Who Wear Beards for Religious Reasons When Other Secular Reasons for Wearing Beards Already Merit Exemptive Status, 30 Seton Hall L. Rev. 397 (1999).