© 2025 SPC University – Private Commercial Law Series
Based on the court’s ruling in Jordan v. Rubio, Case No. 1:24-cv-01844 (D.D.C.) USCOURTS-dcd-1_24-cv-01844-0 (1)

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_24-cv-01844/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_24-cv-01844-0.pdf

I. Overview

This case provides a powerful example of how federal courts apply RFRA, administrative law, and citizenship statutes when an individual asserts that a federal agency is imposing an unlawful burden on their religious or private-belief convictions.

The court held that the U.S. Department of State:

1. Unlawfully burdened the applicant’s sincerely held religious beliefs.
2. Failed strict scrutiny under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
3. Wrongly denied a passport to a U.S. citizen.
4. Must issue the passport immediately without additional procedural requirements.

For SPC University students, this case illustrates how administrative obstacles can violate statutory protections, and how an individual can use federal court procedure to compel agency action.

II. Background Facts

Abigail Carmichael Jordan, a U.S. citizen by birth, has lived without:

• A birth certificate
• A Social Security Number

Her religious upbringing taught that being “enumerated” (e.g., assigned an SSN) violates her duty to keep her spiritual identity separate from government numbering systems. Her family avoided all forms of birth registration for this reason.

Jordan sought a U.S. passport beginning in 2019. The State Department repeatedly denied her because she could not provide:

• A birth certificate, or
• A Letter of No Record (a state-issued confirmation that no birth certificate exists)

Her objection: applying for either document could trigger a chain of administrative actions leading to an SSN being created against her will—a moral violation under her faith. USCOURTS-dcd-1_24-cv-01844-0 (1)

This put Jordan in a familiar dilemma many SPC students study:

Compliance with administrative procedure vs. fidelity to religious or private convictions.

III. Legal Framework

A. Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)

RFRA prohibits the federal government from imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise unless:

1. Compelling Interest – The government has an overriding justification.
2. Least Restrictive Means – The government has no less burdensome way to achieve its goal.

This is a strict scrutiny standard—the highest constitutional burden in American law.

B. 8 U.S.C. § 1503 – Citizenship Determination

This statute allows any individual denied a “right or privilege” of citizenship (such as a passport) to seek a judicial declaration that they are a U.S. national.

C. Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

The APA usually governs agency decisions, but once §1503 provides a remedy, APA claims become unnecessary.

IV. Analysis of the Court’s Ruling

1. The Court Found a “Substantial Burden” on Religion

The government forced Jordan to choose between:

• Obtaining documents that could violate her faith, or
• Giving up her right to a passport

This is the classic “substantial burden” scenario recognized in RFRA precedent. The court held she faced an intolerable choice between conscience and participation in a government process. USCOURTS-dcd-1_24-cv-01844-0 (1)

Importantly:

• The court did not evaluate the “reasonableness” of her beliefs.
• It only evaluated their sincerity—which the government conceded.

2. The Government Failed Strict Scrutiny

The State Department argued that requiring a Letter of No Record prevents fraud and protects passport integrity.

The judge rejected this for two reasons:

A. Compelling Interest Must Be Case-Specific

The Department offered broad national-security justifications. RFRA requires a particularized showing—why this specific applicant needed to comply, despite alternative evidence of citizenship.

They made no such showing.

B. Less Restrictive Means Existed

Virginia’s Vital Records Office eventually provided the Letter directly to the government, without Jordan’s involvement.

This proved:

• Jordan did not need to apply.
• The State Department had a less restrictive path from the beginning.

RFRA obligates agencies to take these less-restrictive paths—even if administratively inconvenient.

V. The §1503 Citizenship Claim

The government conceded Jordan’s U.S. citizenship.

Under §1503:

• Once the plaintiff makes a prima facie showing of citizenship,
• The burden shifts to the government to rebut with clear, unequivocal evidence.

The government offered none.
Therefore, the court declared Jordan a U.S. national entitled to a passport. USCOURTS-dcd-1_24-cv-01844-0 (1)

VI. The Court’s Remedy

The judge issued an injunction requiring the State Department to:

✔ Issue Jordan’s passport “forthwith.”

✔ Without a new application, photograph, or additional steps.

This is rare and shows how seriously courts view violations of RFRA and citizenship rights.

VII. Key Takeaways for SPC University Students

1. RFRA Is a Powerful Tool Against Federal Agencies

RFRA applies even to routine administrative processes like passport issuance. Agencies must:

• Avoid burdening sincere religious beliefs
• Use the least restrictive means
• Accommodate when necessary

Administrative convenience is not a defense.

2. Courts Must Accept Religious Beliefs as the Individual Understands Them

The court cannot question:

• Whether the belief is “logical”
• Whether the belief is “probable”
• Whether the belief aligns with mainstream doctrine

Only sincerity matters.

3. The Government Cannot Condition Citizenship Rights on Violating Conscience

A passport is a right of citizenship, not a discretionary privilege. Denying it because of administrative policies can trigger RFRA, §1503, and constitutional protections.

4. This Case Demonstrates How to Use Federal Court Procedure

Jordan successfully leveraged:

• RFRA (burden on religion)
• §1503 (declaration of citizenship)
• Mandatory injunctions

This combination forced the agency to comply.

VIII. SPC University Insight

This case is a clear example of how private convictions, statutory protections, and federal administrative processes intersect.

Students in SPC University studying:

• private law
• trust vs. public identity
• administrative remedies
• religious-liberty jurisprudence
• citizenship status claims

should view this ruling as a blueprint for how courts analyze claims involving spiritual convictions and administrative rigidity.

The takeaway is simple:

When an agency’s process conflicts with sincerely held beliefs, the law still requires the government to accommodate the individual—not the other way around.

Yusef El