Today CAAF specified two issues for review in the Marine Corps case of United States v. Sterling, No. 15-0510/MC (CAAFlog case page):

I. Did appellant establish that her conduct in displaying signs referencing biblical passages in her shared workplace constituted an exercise of religion within the meaning of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1 (2012), as amended? If so, did the actions of her superior noncommissioned officer in ordering her to take the signs down, and in removing them when she did not, constitute a substantial burden on appellant’s exercise of religion within the meaning of the Act? If so, were these actions in furtherance of a compelling government interest and the least restrictive means of furthering that interest?

II. Did appellant’s superior noncommissioned officer have a valid military purpose in ordering appellant to remove signs referencing biblical passages from her shared workplace?

One Response to “CAAF grants (on specified issues) in Sterling”

  1. Dew_Process says:

    Well, this is going to get interesting considering the amici Sterling’s counsel attracted to the PFR.  The key imho will be how the chips fall on the first question in Issue I.
     
    DISCLAIMER:  I represent an amicus party in support of neither side.