Yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces heard oral arguments in
United States v. Sterling. In the case, the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals upheld a court martial conviction of a marine corps member for disobeying a lawful order to remove signs containing Biblical verses that she had taped up around her desk. (See
prior posting.)
Stars and Stripes summarizes some of yesterday's argument:
Keller [representing the government] argued the Sterling was not punished for putting up religious signs, but rather for defying orders....
He also argued because Sterling never sought a religious accommodation and only raised the religious protections issue later, there was no argument that her religious freedoms were “substantially burdened” under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Clement [representing Lance Cpl. Monifa Sterling] rebutted that because she invoked religious freedom later doesn’t mean that it’s not a fair consideration.
