Today’s Religion Law Quiz steps into the world of criminal law. An individual is given his original name at birth. Later he adopts a new religious name. The individual is later accused of a crime. At trial the prosecutor refers to him by his birth name rather than his given name. The individual argues this violates his religious freedom rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In this situation must the prosecutor refer to the individual by his religious name?
(Scroll down for the answer)
Answer: According to a recent decision from the Western District of Virginia the answer is “No”. United States of Am., v. Deon Andre Green a/k/a Dalayah Assir Yashar'al, Defendant., No. 5:26-CR-00001, 2026 WL 1218128, at *1 (W.D. Va. May 4, 2026). Here is an A.I. generated summary of the decision:
The court’s opinion addresses a criminal defendant’s request that the court and prosecutors refer to him at trial by a religious name he adopted as part of his Hebrew Israelite faith, rather than by his birth name, Deon Green. The defendant argued both that he had adopted the name under Michigan common law and that refusing to use it would burden his religious exercise under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The court ultimately granted the request only in part: the defendant could refer to himself by his religious name, but the court and the government were not required to do so.
On the religious-freedom question, the court focused on whether use of the defendant’s birth name by the government would amount to a “substantial burden” on his religious exercise. Relying on RFRA and Fourth Circuit precedent, the court explained that a substantial burden exists when the government pressures a person to violate religious beliefs or conditions a benefit on abandoning them. Here, the judge found no such burden because the defendant remained free to use his chosen religious name in court and did not show that hearing or being referred to by his birth name would coerce him into changing his beliefs or surrendering a legal benefit.
The opinion also draws an important distinction between allowing religious expression and requiring affirmative accommodation by the government. In the court’s view, the First Amendment protects the defendant’s ability to identify himself by his religious name, but it does not necessarily obligate the court or prosecutors to adopt that usage. The opinion notes that courts have found constitutional problems when a person is forced to acknowledge a religiously offensive name in order to obtain something to which he is entitled, but this case did not present that sort of coercive choice. Instead, the government had already included the preferred religious name in the indictment as an alias, which the court considered an adequate accommodation.
The court also emphasized the practical interests of trial administration and clarity for the jury. Because records relevant to the prosecution may identify the defendant by his birth name, forbidding the government from using that name could confuse jurors or make it harder to connect the evidence to the person on trial. To balance those concerns with the defendant’s religious interests, the judge ordered that the defendant may call himself by his religious name while the court instructs the jury that Deon Green and Dalayah Yashar’Al are the same person. In short, the opinion treats religious freedom here as protecting the defendant’s own expression of faith, but not as requiring the government to fully conform its courtroom language to his religious preference.
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.