U.S. Code » Title 10 » Subtitle Subtitle A— General Military Law › Part PART II— PERSONNEL › Chapter CHAPTER 45— THE UNIFORM

10 U.S.C. § 774

Religious apparel: wearing while in uniform

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)General Rule.—Except as provided under subsection (b), a member of the armed forces may wear an item of religious apparel while wearing the uniform of the member’s armed force.(b)Exceptions.—The Secretary concerned may prohibit the wearing of an item of religious apparel—(1) in circumstances with respect to which the Secretary determines that the wearing of the item would interfere with the performance of the member’s military duties; or(2) if the Secretary determines, under regulations under subsection (c), that the item of apparel is not neat and conservative.(c)Regulations.—The Secretary concerned shall prescribe regulations concerning the wearing of religious apparel by members of the armed forces under the Secretary’s jurisdiction while the members are wearing the uniform. Such regulations shall be consistent with subsections (a) and (b).(d)Religious Apparel Defined.—In this section, the term “religious apparel” means apparel the wearing of which is part of the observance of the religious faith practiced by the member.(Added Pub. L. 100–180, div. A, title V, § 508(a)(2), Dec. 4, 1987, 101 Stat. 1086.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 774 was renumbered section 776 of this title.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesRegulations

Pub. L. 100–180, div. A, title V, § 508(c), Dec. 4, 1987, 101 Stat. 1087, directed the Secretary concerned to prescribe the regulations required by subsec. (c) of this section not later than the end of the 120-day period beginning on Dec. 4, 1987.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005). · cites it 3× “" 10 U. S. C. §§ 774 (a)-(b). We do not read RLUIPA to elevate accommodation of religious observances over an institution's need to maintain order and safety.”
Jaskirat Singh v. David Berger, 56 F.4th 88 (D.C. Cir. 2022). · cites it 2× “1019 , 1086–1087 (1987) (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 774 ). Then, in 1993, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), Pub.”
Rasul v. Myers, 512 F.3d 644 (D.C. Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “Amici contend that RFRA changed the standard of review for the free exercise claims of prisoners and military service members to the compelling interest standard.”
A.A. Ex Rel. Betenbaugh v. Needville Indep. Sch. Dist., 611 F.3d 248 (5th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “" 10 U.S.C. § 774 (a)-(b). [99] Daniels v. City of Arlington, Texas, 246 F.”
Lebron Ex Rel. Padilla v. Rumsfeld, 670 F.3d 540 (4th Cir. 2012). “Codified in Title 10, which also contains the UCMJ and other military regulations, the statute authorizes wearing religious apparel, but preserves specific authority for the Secretary of Defense to prohibit wearing religious clothing that “would interfere with the performance of…”
U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden, 27 F.4th 336 (5th Cir. 2022). “1310 (1986), abrogated by 10 U.S.C. § 774 (a)-(b). The Goldman court held that “the First Amendment does not require the military to accommodate [wearing a yarmulke] in the face of its view that they would detract from the uniformity sought by the dress regulations.”
United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95 (C.A.A.F. 2001). “Although the Goldman decision was overtaken by statute, 10 USC § 774 , which now permits wearing religious apparel under certain conditions, its reasoning on uniform requirements is still sound.”
Jama v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 343 F. Supp. 2d 338 (D.N.J. 2004). “2d 525 (1978), and providing journalists with greater protection against searches and seizures); National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989, § 508, 10 U.S.C. § 774 (reacting to Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.”
Christians v. Crystal Evangelical Free Church (In Re Young), 141 F.3d 854 (8th Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “547 (1978), and providing journalists with greater protection against searches and seizures); National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989, § 508, 10 U.S.C. § 774 (reacting to Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.”
Alameen v. Coughlin, 892 F. Supp. 440 (E.D.N.Y 1995). “10 U.S.C. § 774 . However, the interests at issue in Goldman are a shadow of the concerns of defendants here — the use of the beads by organized gangs are a direct challenge to the obedience and uniformity that are essential to the orderly and secure operation of the prison.”
Magic Valley Evangelical Free Church, Inc. v. Fitzgerald (In Re Hodge), 220 B.R. 386 (D. Idaho 1998). “2d 478 (1986), which held that soldiers have no constitutional right to wear religious headgear, Congress created such a statutory right, codified at 10 U.S.C. § 774 . The Supreme Court has never hinted that Congress exceeded its power in enacting these and other new statutory…”
Hartmann v. Stone, 68 F.3d 973 (6th Cir. 1995). “2d 478 (1986) (military need not let soldier wear a yarmulke; result reversed by statute, see 10 U.S.C. § 774 (1988)); Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.