On a November day in 1994, Joas Bontrager and his brother, members of the Old Order Amish faith, were hunting deer on family farmland during gun season. Ohio law requires gun hunters to wear bright orange clothing for public safety reasons. However, Bontrager chose not to wear the orange vest as it conflicted with their religious beliefs, which included avoiding brightly colored clothing. Bontrager was cited for violating the regulation, launching a case that questioned whether the state could mandate the wearing of hunter-orange clothing if it conflicts with someone’s religious principles.

Bontrager challenged the constitutionality of the regulation. He argued that the orange clothing requirement violated protections of the free exercise of religion under both the Ohio and U.S. constitutions. 

The case made its way through the court system and landed in the Third District Court of Appeals. The appeals court had to interpret the law and the constitutions to determine if the government had overstepped. It applied a three-prong test to help determine this issue:  

1. Is the religious belief sincerely held?
2. Does the government regulation infringe on the exercise of the religious belief?
3. Does the state have a compelling interest for the law and did the state use the least restrictive means to achieve its interest?

Was Bontrager’s belief genuine? The court essentially said yes. It agreed that the evidence supported that Bontrager's avoidance of brightly colored clothing arose from his religious beliefs and noted that he had been willing to face prosecution and pursue an appeal rather than abandon them. The court didn’t question his sincerity.

Did the regulation requiring hunters to wear orange clothing burden Bontrager’s religious practices? The court decided that hunting itself wasn’t a required practice of Bontrager's faith. Although hunting could contribute to an Amish ideal of self-sufficiency, the court ruled “hunting is not an aspect central to the Amish religion in which one must be engaged to practice the religion properly.” There were other ways that Bontrager could have hunted that didn’t require wearing the orange vest, including during bow season or by hunting different animals, the court explained.

The court then tested if the government proved a compelling interest for the law and the law was constructed in the least-restrictive way because it inhibited a constitutional right. The court noted the government has a legitimate reason to require orange vests for public safety. Deer gun hunting can cause serious accidents, and making hunters more visible helps protect hunters and nonhunters from accidental shootings, the court noted. The court considered the law to be narrowly tailored because it applied to specified types of deer hunting rather than all hunting.

After all the analysis, on Oct. 18, 1996, 30 years ago, the court upheld the law’s constitutionality and Joas Bontrager’s conviction for violating the law in State v. Bontrager.

A brightly colored hunting vest may seem an unlikely source of a constitutional debate. But the Bontrager case demonstrates how constitutional questions often emerge from ordinary situations. Cases like Bontrager's illustrate the work courts do when individual rights and the government's responsibility to protect the public appear to collide.

This case is one of several featured in exhibits in the Supreme Court of Ohio Visitor Education Center. Cases are selected to illustrate the importance of Ohio’s judicial system and its role in interpreting the law. See all the case exhibits, and learn more about the courts, on a free tour! Call 614-387-9223 or email CourtTours@sc.ohio.gov to schedule.