Epstein Torture for Get trial:Judge Wolfson rejects defense of violence for religious purpose

Some excerpts: ... On the face of the Indictment, it is unclear whether all non-violent methods were exhausted before the alleged kidnappings took place here. That fact, however, does not change this Court’s analysis. Indeed, if Defendants had acceptable religious alternatives -- instead of resorting to violating the criminal laws -- I find that the Government’s application of the kidnapping laws to Defendants here does not substantially Defendants’ religious exercise. Nevertheless, even if Defendants had exhausted all other available non-violent means of coercing a husband to give his wife a get, and the only remaining method of coercion, as argued by Defendants, is through violence or force, i.e., kidnapping, I remain convinced that would not amount to a substantial burden. This Court has not found any authority condoning the use of violence under the guise of religion, and more importantly, no case has found the Government’s application of violent crime laws to certain religious practices is a substantial burden. 

 Even assuming Defendants could prove a substantial burden on their religion as a result of their prosecution, the RFRA challenge fails under the remaining two prongs of the test. As to the first of the two elements, the Government has the burden of demonstrating that the law which constitutes a substantial burden on an individual’s religion furthers a compelling governmental interest. Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 429 (2006). On this issue, Stimler posits that “deterrence of possible future efforts to use violent means to coerce recalcitrant husbands to authorize the writing of a ‘get’” is not a compelling interest. Stimler Br. at 11. To contrary, the Government maintains that prosecuting crimes of violence is compelling. Gov’t Br. at 16. 

When determining whether a government action serves a compelling interest, it is not sufficient to use broad terms; RFRA “contemplates a more focused inquiry.” Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2779 (2014). Thus, even if the government can show that the law is in furtherance of a generalized compelling interest, the government must prove that “the compelling interest is satisfied through application of the law ‘to the Person’ — the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is being substantially burdened.” Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita, 546 U.S. 418, 430–31 (2006). 

 ... Defendants’ purported use of force to effectuate a mitzvah involves kidnapping and even physical violence to others. Even more compelling, the Supreme Court in O Centro found that there was little evidence to demonstrate the type of harm to the religious personal drug users that the government there proffered. Thus, the Court found that the government’s stated interest to protect the health of those religious users was not a compelling one. To the contrary, the Government’s interest, here, is to protect the health and safety of those individuals who were victims of Defendants’ alleged violence and kidnapping. Accordingly, I find O Centro distinguishable. 

... The least-restrictive-means standard requires a showing that the government “lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting parties.” Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2780 (2014). As stated above, the Government has a compelling interest in the uniform prevention of violence. Stimler has argued, as discussed supra, that the law burdens the “mitzvah” of using force, if necessary, to obtain a get; thus, there is no method by which the Government could enforce its interest in preventing violence without burdening Defendants’ religious exercise. In that regard, in this case, any effective means to prevent violence would necessarily prevent Defendants from using the force, which, according to Defendants, is permitted by Orthodox Judaism. ...

============================================

   Courts opinion on Jewish Law motion