{"id":407,"date":"2026-05-04T10:22:58","date_gmt":"2026-05-04T10:22:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/?p=407"},"modified":"2026-05-04T10:23:40","modified_gmt":"2026-05-04T10:23:40","slug":"doe-v-mcfadden-and-the-ongoing-struggle-for-religious-freedom-in-policing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/2026\/05\/doe-v-mcfadden-and-the-ongoing-struggle-for-religious-freedom-in-policing\/","title":{"rendered":"Doe v. McFadden and the Ongoing Struggle for Religious Freedom in Policing"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Doe v. McFadden<\/em><\/a> joins a growing series of cases that underscore what has been described as a nationwide pattern<\/a> of political repression and anti-Muslim sentiment. Far from an isolated incident, Doe\u2019s allegations mirror a series of similar lawsuits across the country. Over the past decade, several law enforcement agencies have been sued over claims that officers forced Muslim women to remove their hijabs\u2014a religious head covering\u2014during police interactions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In response to constitutional challenges, law enforcement agencies often defend the removal of religious head coverings during booking by invoking broad claims of \u201csecurity\u201d or \u201csafety.\u201d Legal challenges to these practices generally proceed under two overlapping frameworks: the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment<\/a>, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act<\/a> (RLUIPA), which affords heightened protection to the religious exercise of individuals in government custody. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the women subjected to this practice, wearing a hijab is an expression of sincerely held religious beliefs; being seen without it, some describe, is akin to being seen naked<\/a>. Forcibly removing a hijab can leave them feeling distressed, exposed, and fearful of reputational harm if she is seen uncovered. This is not merely a hypothetical concern; it is what Doe alleges occurred during her interaction with the Mecklenburg County Sheriff\u2019s Office.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the aftermath of a protest outside a city council meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina, the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department issued a warrant for Jane Doe\u2019s arrest, asserting violation of a noise ordinance and impeding traffic<\/a>. Doe voluntarily turned herself in at the Mecklenburg County Detention Center, wearing her hijab and corresponding modest clothing, as aligned with her religious beliefs.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

After informing the arresting officers that she is Muslim, and that, consistent with her beliefs, she cannot be seen without modest clothing and a hijab by men outside her immediate family, they proceeded to allow a female officer to search Doe. Despite being aware of her beliefs, the female officer lifted Doe\u2019s shirt in plain view of male officers and other detainees.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The female officer then informed Doe that she would have to remove her hijab to take her booking photo, and that she would not be permitted to put it back on afterward. Again, Doe restated her religious beliefs and explained the shame and humiliation that would come to her, her family, friends, and male community members if the male individuals present were to see her without her hijab. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite Doe\u2019s earnest explanations, the female officer continued to insist that she remove her hijab. Overwhelmed with fear of the alternatives if she continued to refuse, Doe finally relented. Mecklenburg County Sheriff Deputies photographed Doe without her hijab and uploaded the photograph to their database. Throughout the rest of the process\u2014booking, appearing before the magistrate, and waiting in a holding cell\u2014Doe was left without her hijab in the presence of many male detainees and officers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In her lawsuit against Sheriff Garry McFadden of the Mecklenburg County Sheriff\u2019s Office and two unnamed officers, Doe alleged that the officers violated her right to free exercise of religion and due process pursuant to 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983<\/a>, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, which requires government officials to accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of people in jail and prison, absent a compelling governmental interest requiring non-accommodation.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sheriff McFadden\u2019s practices, Doe stated in her complaint, were not the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. Other law enforcement and government agencies, such as the United States Department of State and the State of New York Department of Correctional Services, maintain policies recognizing that a clear photograph of an individual\u2019s face is sufficient for identification, even when the individual is wearing a religious head covering. The Mecklenburg County Sheriff\u2019s Office could have adopted the same approach by allowing Doe to wear her hijab in the booking photograph, provided her face remained visible, but instead declined to do so, failing to use the least restrictive means available to fulfill their objective. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Doe moved for a preliminary injunction<\/a> ordering the Government to: (1) destroy Doe\u2019s booking photographs without her hijab, as well as all security footage of her without her hijab in the facility; (2) take every step to destroy all copies of her booking photograph and any associated security footage, including from other agency\u2019s databases; and (3) implement a policy change to prohibit officers and staff from taking photographs of Muslim women without their hijab.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Outcome<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although the matter was eventually settled outside of court, Doe v. McFadden<\/em> is no less significant. In the settlement, aided in part by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)<\/a>, Mecklenburg County Sheriff\u2019s Office agreed to fulfill Doe\u2019s requested course of conduct\u2014taking steps to destroy Doe\u2019s photograph from their database\u2014and issued in a new set of policies<\/a> regarding the treatment of individuals who wear religious head coverings.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The policies state: <\/p>\n\n\n\n