Flashing Lights and Flickering Rights:

Flashing Lights and Flickering Rights:
Recent Religious Infringement Injunction Ruling, with Critical Insights for Public Officials

Cory Anderson
November 28, 2024
Amish, Amish-Swartzentruber
Buggy Crashes, Conflict-External, Conflict-Internal, Safety, Service Provider

Caption: Hardin County courthouse

For over two years, Ohio law enforcement has issued citations to Amish individuals—almost entirely Swartzentruber Amish—who religiously object to electrifying their buggies with flashing yellow lights. The citation count well exceeds 200. Six Swartzentrubers have served jail time while others have been facing threats of child endangerment charges and property liens. These events were documented here September 21, 2024 in “Buggy Safety or Religious Infringement? Ohio’s New Flashing Light Law Brings Coordinated Response after 200+ Citations to Swartzentruber Amish.”

Ohio’s Constitutional protections for religious freedom surpass even those in the federal Constitution. Yet the ongoing situation has troubled advocates of religious free exercise. Perhaps most concerning is how the law came to pass: partly through efforts of other Amish who knew of Swartzentruber objections, an action that appears to violate the fundamental Amish conviction of not going to law against each other.

On November 26, 2024, Common Pleas Court Judge Steve Christopher of Hardin County, OH, presided over four Amish plaintiffs’ case challenging the State’s flashing light law. Affected individuals from across Ohio—including the plaintiffs—filled the courtroom. Graduate students from Harvard University Law School’s Religious Freedom Clinic presented compelling oral arguments, demonstrating remarkable insight into this complex, multifaceted case. They received support from Philip D. Williamson of Taft Law and Harvard clinic instructors Josh McDaniel, Parker Knight, and Steven Burnett. Counsel for the plaintiffs are offering their services pro bono, respecting plaintiffs’ wish to limit personal involvement in litigation.

Judge Christopher concluded by granting temporary injunctive relief against the law’s enforcement, with the ruling’s full scope pending the trial transcript’s release. He then addressed those gathered, emphasizing religious freedom’s cornerstone role in American society. His remarks highlighted how various faiths—Catholics, Pilgrims, Scotch-Irish, and indeed, Amish and Mennonites—sought refuge in the colonies from European religious persecution. The protection of religious conscience remains equally vital today.

The Age of Safetyism

Some state officials, service providers, and Amish maintain that yellow flashing lights are essential for safety, a claim awaiting thorough court evaluation. For now, let’s examine how “safety” as a concept has been wielded to override religious conscience. Jonathan Haidt’s recent New York Times bestseller The Anxious Generation offers relevant insights about “safetyism.” He writes:

We use the word” safetyism” to refer to a culture or belief system in which safety has become a sacred value, which means that people become unwilling to make trade-offs demanded by other practical and moral concerns. Safety trumps everything else, no matter how unlikely or trivial the potential danger. (p. 89)

While used in the context of child safety, “safetyism” also pervades the yellow flashing light debate. Swartzentrubers who refuse to electrify their buggies face accusations of caring little about safety, suggesting a deep moral transgression or even religious hypocrisy.

Many Swartzentrubers opposing electrification of buggies realize that safetyism is a slippery slope, without boundary. They observe more progressive Amish groups that have shifted dramatically in personal appearance through their embrace of safetyism. Some of these Amish have thoroughly adopted reflective bright garments and accessories, even beyond most non-Amish, raising questions about the viability of historic religious beliefs on plain dress.

Further, safetyism reveals itself as selective rather than absolute, intersecting with other social and cultural priorities. This selective application becomes particularly evident when we observe how many who criticize Swartzentruber Amish for resisting safety-based legislation were themselves resistant to the state imposing COVID-19 safety measures. Such inconsistency suggests that appeals to safety sometimes mask deeper social tensions.

Collaboration Instead of Conflict: Four Critical Insights for Service Providers Public Officials

Throughout my involvement, several recommendations for service providers and officials keep coming to mind.

First, acknowledge and prepare for Amish subgroup diversity. Different groups hold varying perspectives, even within subgroups. Creating policy based on limited consultation—while excluding others—risks church-state entanglement, effectively taking sides in religious matters. In the current case, evidence suggests minimal coordination with adversely affected groups, perhaps even deliberate obscuring the bill’s development from some populations. Solutions should avoid entangling policy with religious divisions.

Second, public sentiment toward certain Amish groups can turn hostile—sometimes even between Amish groups themselves. The yellow flashing light issue has sparked animosity toward Swartzentruber Amish from locals and other Amish alike. (Notably, others express appreciation for Swartzentrubers while criticizing progressive Amish!) The controversy clearly transcends safety concerns. Policy driven by antagonism inevitably causes harm and likely violates rights.

Third, as progressive Amish groups adopt various yellow flashing lights, traffic safety faces new challenges. The proliferation of different yellow lighting devices has made highway symbology increasingly inconsistent in Amish areas. This raises questions about which lighting styles truly enhance safety. Officials and service providers must maintain flexibility and creativity, willing to reassess and revise solutions that prove ineffective.

Finally, recognize that stakeholders likely value your input but may wonder whether you value their religious convictions. In this case, the plaintiffs value safety but wish to maintain religious objections to buggy electrification. Religious objections need not indicate rejection of core goals like safety. Understanding and respecting religious positions often catalyzes collaborative solutions.

Conclusion

While the Hardin County injunction ruling marks only the beginning of what may be two to three years of a legal journey—potentially proceeding through appeals to district and the state Supreme Court—it has begun promisingly. My central regret lies in the missed opportunity for collaboration between state officials and affected Swartzentruber Amish in finding alternative solutions. Swartzentrubers have repeatedly met with officials but to no effect. Even now, Ohio’s legislature could resolve the matter by striking down the law, eliminating the need for continued litigation. Officials could still hit the reset button and try working again with affected parties.

Follow the publicly available content of this case at Hardin County’s Clerk of Courts website and search for case number 20241126.

You can also access documents about its passage here: HB 501 (133rd assembly, didn’t pass) and HB 30 (134th assembly, passed).

Cite This Article

Anderson, Cory. 2024. “Flashing Lights and Flickering Rights: Recent Religious Infringement Injunction Ruling, with Critical Insights for Public Officials.” As Well As: Addendums That Redefine (blog), November 28. https://coryanderson.org/flashing-lights-and-flickering-rights

Access Related Content

Buggy Safety or Religious Infringement?
Ohio's New Flashing Light Law Brings Coordinated Response after 200+ Citations to Swartzentruber Amish

Four Old Order Amish from Swartzentruber and Kenton sects (see Petrovich 2017) are challenging a new Ohio state law requiring their buggies to have a yellow flashing light. A recent article in the Religion News Service reports that Harvard University ...