First Responder Beard Case’s Revival Elevates Religious Freedom

What started as a simple beard request from a New Jersey first responder is now a significant precedent that strengthens legal protections for people of faith in the workplace.

In Smith v. City of Atlantic City, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit last month upheld Alexander Smith’s Title VII and free exercise claims, finding that he deserves injunctive relief to grow his religious beard while his case is pending.

Smith, who previously worked as a traditional firefighter, is an air mask technician at the Atlantic City Fire Department. He doesn’t fight fires, but he refills his colleagues’ air tanks. He also serves as a local pastor and chaplain for first responders.

After his employer denied his request for a religious accommodation to grow a beard—even though no air mask technician in three decades had been called to fight a fire—Smith sued under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, Title VII, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The district court ruled against him, crediting the city’s safety concerns without requiring evidence that Smith’s beard would impact his current role, and denied him a preliminary injunction.

But now Smith, represented by First Liberty Institute and the Harvard Law School Religious Freedom Clinic, has won the protection of a preliminary injunction from the Third Circuit so that he can grow his beard while the case is pending. The court held that upon a “serious examination of the need to compel Smith to violate his faith, we cannot see a public interest of such weight as to deny the most fundamental of freedoms.”

This precedent is significant for people of all faiths in the workplace. The Third Circuit said it best: Religious freedom is “our first freedom,” not “a second-class right.”

The opinion has two key implications for the workplace. First, the elevated standard from the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Groff v. DeJoy, which requires employers to grant religious accommodations unless they can show evidence of a “burden that is substantial in the context of the employer’s overall business,” is here to stay.

Applying that heightened standard, the Third Circuit held that even where safety interests are involved, “mere recitation of an interest does not establish undue hardship.” This is important for employees of all faiths, especially first responders, military personnel, and health-care workers. Safety concerns may make religious accommodations impossible in some circumstances, but not where the risk is “vanishingly small” as here.

Second, courts are moving away from the Employment Division v. Smith framework to address free exercise claims, especially where policies have either discretionary or built-in exceptions. After the Supreme Court’s 1990 ruling, free exercise claims have languished under that Smith case, which held that when a policy is neutral and generally applicable, then governments need only show their actions are rationally related to a legitimate interest—a very low bar.

Yet most constitutional rights receive much higher protection: strict scrutiny, which requires the government to show that it is using the least restrictive means to pursue a compelling interest. Even where safety is implicated, “so long as the government can achieve its interests in a manner that does not burden religion, it must do so.”

In his opinion, Judge David Porter of the Third Circuit described “strict scrutiny” as “the one standard to rule all Free Exercise Clause claims not governed by Smith.” This case falls outside the Smith framework for two reasons: Atlantic City doesn’t fit test its other administrative employees because they also don’t need to fight fires, and captains have discretion to deviate from the grooming policy.

The court explained that strict scrutiny “applies for good reason: there is concern that our current Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence is too weak and is ‘lone among the First Amendment freedoms’ in its weaknesses.” It added, “To apply a standard less than strict scrutiny would falsely suggest that freedom of religion is ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different’ and weaker ‘body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’”

Legal analysts can expect that courts will continue to hold employers accountable under the Groff standard. Courts may also continue the shift away from the Employment Division v. Smith framework toward stronger protections for free exercise claimants. For the plaintiff here, his case may continue, but he can exercise his faith freely during the process.

The case is Smith v. City of Atlantic City, 2025 BL 186466, 3d Cir., No. 23-3265, decided 5/30/25.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Kayla Toney is counsel for First Liberty Institute, a nonprofit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all. First Liberty represents Alexander Smith in Smith v. City of Atlantic City.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines