Where a defendant, who argued that her Muslim religion prohibited her from rising when court was called to order, was cited repeatedly for criminal contempt, the first contempt citation is affirmed because the defendant knew in advance about a written order for her to rise, failed to make a formal challenge despite having an opportunity to do so and knowingly violated the order, but the remaining citations are vacated because the defendant effectively requested an alteration of the order and was forced to choose between violating the order and forfeiting her potential right to remain seated based on her religious beliefs, and the district court erred by failing to consider whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act required accommodation.
Judgment is affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part.
U.S. v. Ali (MLW No. 63742/Case No. 11-3512 – 9 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Gruender, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota.