In Yarbrough v. Saltzman, (D DC, April 3, 2026), a D.C. federal district court dismissed a claim by a major in the Air Force Reserve that his religious freedom rights under RFRA were violated when he was issued a letter of admonishment for statements he made while speaking at a celebration for a friend's retirement from the military. The court said in part:
At the event, held aboard the Battleship Missouri Memorial, Yarbrough delivered a speech while in his Air Force uniform that called on the audience to resist a “radical political faction” within the military who were fostering a culture of “incompetence and cowardice” among the ranks by requiring that service members undergo mandatory anti-extremism training....
Yarbrough argues that Saltzman substantially burdened his religious exercise by preventing him from carrying out his religious duty to “speak truth.” ... This Court disagrees....
The appropriate inquiry must be trained on the “nexus between religious practice and religious tenet”: whether the regulation meaningfully forecloses individuals’ opportunities to vindicate their religious conviction.... Thus, the question in this case is whether the letter of admonishment placed Yarbrough in such a position. It did not. A government action does not substantially burden religious beliefs when it merely forecloses one of a “multitude of means” at the plaintiff’s disposal to satisfy that obligation....
[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]
