Muslim Veil Case
France Constitutional Council
Decision No. 2010-613 DC (2010)
- Written by Tom Squier, JD
Facts
In 1984, France’s Ministry of Education published a circular that affirmed its support of religious freedom and secularism in schools. In 2004, France’s Parliament enacted a law that prohibited students from wearing overtly religious clothes in public schools. Shortly afterward, the Ministry of Education replaced the 1984 circular with a new circular that identified particular clothing items of concern, including the Christian cross, the Jewish yarmulke, and the Islamic veil. The wording of the circular implied that all Muslim headscarves might be items of concern. In 2010, framing the issues as one of public safety, France’s Parliament wrote the Act Prohibiting the Concealment of the Face in Public (the act), which would ban all face coverings in public spaces, unless the face covering was justified for health or professional reasons or was otherwise authorized by law. While writing the act, Parliament considered that face coverings in public might constitute a danger to public safety and that they negatively impacted women by placing them in a perceived position of inferiority. The presidents of France’s National Assembly and Senate requested that the Constitutional Council review the proposed act for constitutionality before it was promulgated.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
