When her immediate supervisor – Staff Sergeant Alexander – saw the verses, she ordered Sterling to remove them, saying that she did not like the tone.
Sterling refused, according to her lawyers, citing First Amendment freedoms and the fact that others in her unit were allowed to have personal items in their workstations. The following day, Sterling found the Bible verses in the garbage. She then reprinted and posted the verses, but found them in the trash again the next day.
On February 1, 2014, Sterling was court-martialed.
"Marines fight for the freedom of all Americans and make many sacrifices to do so," Liberty Institute senior counsel and director of military affairs Michael Berry told CNA. "They should not be denied their most fundamental freedom – religious freedom – which is guaranteed to all."
Sterling argued before a trial court that her religious expression is protected by her First Amendment rights and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). She also said that none of her peers ever complained about the Bible verses.
(Story continues below)
Subscribe to our daily newsletter
At Catholic News Agency, our team is committed to reporting the truth with courage, integrity, and fidelity to our faith. We provide news about the Church and the world, as seen through the teachings of the Catholic Church. When you subscribe to the CNA UPDATE, we'll send you a daily email with links to the news you need and, occasionally, breaking news.
As part of this free service you may receive occasional offers from us at EWTN News and EWTN. We won't rent or sell your information, and you can unsubscribe at any time.
"In any event, neither SSgt Alexander nor any other witness testified that any Marine (including the Marine who purportedly shared LCpl Sterling's desk) was ever distracted, annoyed, or agitated by – or even saw – the quotations," the brief explains.
Both the initial trial court and the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals ruled against Sterling.
"Indeed, the appellant never told her SSgt that the signs had a religious connotation and never requested any religious accommodation to enable her to display the signs," the appeals court said in its decision. "Instead, the record supports the conclusion that the appellant was simply placing what she believed to be personal reminders that those she considered adversaries could not harm her. Such action does not trigger the RFRA."