On this day: Case history is made regarding religious freedom and hunting regulations.

On this day: Case history is made regarding religious freedom and hunting regulations.

On Nov. 28, 1994, brothers Samuel and Joas Bontrager were out hunting on their father’s farmland in Hardin County when a wildlife officer stopped them. The brothers were fined $50 each for failing to wear a bright orange hat, vest, or jacket in compliance with state law. The bigger problem? The Bontragers were members of the Old Order Amish faith, and claimed wearing orange was against their religious beliefs and a violation of their First Amendment rights.

Ohio courts use the U.S. Supreme Court’s three-part test, known as the Sherbert test, to review freedom-of-religion cases. Defendants must show that their religious beliefs are sincerely held and that the law infringes on the constitutional right to freely engage in religious practices. The court must determine if the state has a compelling interest to enforce the law and that the law is written in the least restrictive way.

The Third District Court of Appeals weighed the Amish obligation to wear dark colors with the state’s responsibility to regulate hunting for safety reasons. On this day in 1996, the appellate court ruled the law wasn’t a violation of religious freedom. Although the Third District determined that the Bontragers were sincere in their faith, it decided that hunting is not central to the Amish faith. The appeals court also found that the state has a compelling interest to promote hunting safely, comparing hunting regulations to seatbelt laws.

This case is one of several featured in the Visitor Education Center at the Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial Center. Cases are selected to illustrate the importance of Ohio’s judicial system and its role in interpreting the law. See these cases for yourself on a free tour! Call 614-387-9223 or email CourtTours@sc.ohio.gov to schedule.