Lane Dilg [staff attorney, ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief]: "In 2006, Ginnah Muhammad went to Michigan small claims court to recover $3000 from a rental-car company that she believed unfairly charged her for repairs. A state judge gave her a choice: remove the niqab she wore as a matter of religious practice before testifying, or he would dismiss her claim. As her beliefs did not permit her to remove her veil, her claim was dismissed. This decision may surprise people, and it should.

On Monday, a federal court declined to hold that Muhammad's rights of access to the courts and religious freedom were violated. The federal judge's decision relies on a number of procedural doctrines intended to protect state courts from undue federal intervention. It was not, in other words, a decision on the merits under federal or state law.

Should the merits be addressed, Muhammad's case would be far more difficult. The state judge declared he could not determine Muhammad's credibility without seeing her entire face, but judges frequently surmount such difficulties. Witnesses may be distraught, may be unavailable to testify in person, may have relevant disabilities, or may have professional practice as, for example, actors or poker players. Further, judges themselves may have limited or impaired eyesight. In all of those situations, a judge must simply rely on other indicators to determine whether a witness is, or is not credible; this case is no different. Throwing Muhammad's claim out was a drastic and unnecessary solution to a common problem. Principles of fairness, access to courts, and religious freedom demand better."