Court rules Muslim belief trumps U.S. custom

There is a tradition in the courts of most nations that everyone stands when the judge enters the courtroom. (I don't have any feelings about this one way or the other.)

In October of last year a trial began in federal court in Minnesota for a Muslim woman charged with providing financial support to a terrorist group.

The woman refused to stand when the judge entered the courtroom--on 20 occasions. Her attorney explained that her refusal was on religious grounds. He said the Koran quotes Mohammed as saying that there was no need for people to stand when he entered a room. The woman claimed that if Mohammed didn't require people to stand to honor him, she couldn't be forced to stand for anyone else.

The judge explained that "the law of the United States is clear that the freedom of religion does not keep you from rising and following the decorum of court,” but the defendant ignored this reasoning so the judge charged her with contempt of court and sentenced her to five days in jail for each occurrence.

After two days in jail, and discussing the situation with local imams, she agreed to follow the customary decorum and was released. Case closed, and why is this a story?

Because the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals just dismissed 19 of the 20 contempt counts, ruling that the judge "erred in failing to consider whether he was required to accommodate Ms. Ali under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act."

Since there was no sentence or fine that could be affected by the ruling, one wonders why the Appeals court bothered to hear the case at all. That is, the matter should have been moot. Yet the court did bother, and here we are.

This ruling may strike you as utterly trivial. I think it's anything but. Because if it stands (which is virtually certain), a good argument can be made that it establishes the legal precedent that even the most esoteric reasoning concerning religious beliefs will override U.S. laws and customs.

For example, since Catholics believe the use of contraceptives violates a fundamental premise of their religion, they could refuse to comply with a federal law requiring them to provide health insurance that was required to provide contraceptives to all employees.

Wait...what? You say the Obama administration has argued that Catholics must comply with this provision, thereby violating a fundamental tenet of their religion?

But...but I thought the 8th Circuit decision settled this the opposite way, saying religious belief trumped everything. How can this contradiction exist?

Surely the government won't argue that there are different rules for different religions. Because that would constitute unequal treatment under the law.