Freedom of Religion: Mad Hatters
US District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern District: CAIR v. Judge William Callahan
Is this a blow against Muslim freedom of religion or not? You decide. The District Court upheld Wayne County Judge William Callahan’s declaration to hijab-wearing plaintiff Raneen Albaghdady, “No hats allowed in the courtroom.”
When told her headwear was not permitted, Ms. Albaghdady responded, “Okay. It doesn’t matter,” and removed the hijab. Her name change application then proceeded to decision (unfavorable, it turns out, because she filed without meeting the residency requirement), to be followed by a successful reapplication some time later.
The guardians of all things Islam, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), apparently heard about Judge Callahan’s ethnic and religious insensitivity and filed this action “seeking a ‘declaration that the customary practice of … Callahan, in requiring Muslim women to remove their hijab violated’ Albaghdady’s ‘fundamental right to freely practice her religion’ in violation of the First Amendment.”
Judge Callahan moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion and dismissed CAIR’s action. Blogs began to report this as another encroachment on Islamic freedom of religion. The decision will actually have the exact opposite effect. Albaghdady’s problem was not her religion, but apparently how she viewed the head cover. As she put it, it didn't matter. So she took it off. According to the District Court, if it didn't matter in the lower court, it couldn't matter later when she decided to sue in Federal Court.
CAIR claimed that the Judges no-hat policy is unconstitutional because it deprived Albaghdady of her right to exercise her religion and therefore restricted her access to the no-headgear judicial system of which Judge Callahan is a part.
Based on the facts at bar, the District Court could not find an applicable exception to the judicial immunity extended judges in the exercise of their duties. Moreover, the court’s conduct at issue is this case involved controlling dress and demeanor of parties participating in proceedings before the court, clearly the exercise of a duty within Judge Callahan’s juridical capacity.
As for the constitutional issue, plaintiff wanted to know what Judge Callahan knew and when he knew it, insisting he had to be familiar with the religious implications of the hijab because Wayne County is “home to the largest concentration of Arab-American Muslims outside of the Middle East” and the judge had 22 years experience on the bench. The inference was clear: Judge Callahan knew this was no ordinary hat, but was, rather, a religious head covering.
Decent arguments all, except that the exchange between parties was recorded on videotape, and it was clear that removing the hijab for Ms. Albaghdady was no big deal, and not a peep of religious protest was uttered at the time, notwithstanding Ms. Albaghdady’s subsequent claim that she was “terrified and scared” because in America, you just “can't say no to a judge in a court room.”
Based largely on the video, the District Court concluded that “This is not a situation where a government actor required removal of the hijab after the wearer asserted her First Amendment rights. There simply is no evidence that Callahan would have required the removal of a head covering if he had known of its religious significance.”
So does this case encroach on the religious freedom of hijab-wearing Muslim women? (or Muslim women wearing Burqas, Niqabs or Chadors for that matter). Hardly. It just sets out the requirement that they raise a timely religious protest of some sort which will apparently guarantee that they can wear the headgear of their choice to the courtroom of their preference.
Hats off to the court for defending the American way of life.
Or not.
