My suspicion is that the policy was enacted to prevent gang bangers (and their girlfriends, and their babies, and whoever) from entering the courtroom flying their colors.
That's just a hunch.
I don't think a judge has a right to make a courtroom policy that violates a state law... does he? And a 10-day jail sentence for violating courtroom policy seems suspect to me.
You would think that Muslims would have gotten the point over the years about the hajib/turban thing in Western courts and formal assemblies. It has been a constant argument through the centuries.
I kind of like the way Vlad Tepes handled the conflict in the 14th century. When he was approached by two Turkish emissaries, he told them to remove their turbans. They told him that in their culture, they did not remove their turbans as a sign of respect. Vlad Tepes had the turbans nailed to their heads and sent them back with the message that future emissaries should be mindful of the customs of the land to which they are sent.
Actually, it's a pretty common policy everywhere. It is just a courtesy to the court not to wear hats, scarfs, and other head gear.
If so, it must be a fairly recent policy.
A lady would not have appeared in court without a hat before the 1960s.
Haven't you ever watched old perry mason reruns?
Hatuey's article indicates that the judge in that case (or the state) was never sued. SALDEF sent a letter seeking an apology, and the judge provided it. I don't think anything official came of it.I don't think a judge has a right to make a courtroom policy that violates a state law... does he? And a 10-day jail sentence for violating courtroom policy seems suspect to me.
If there is state law on the matter, however, the judge can still make a rule violating it, said rule would just get tossed when addressed in part. Congress can make a law that says "niggers and jews can't vote" if they really want to. It's just that that law wouldn't survive a legal challenge. (for further examples see everything from the Patriot Act to the new FISA law)