Despite the well-established first amendment principles of freedom of religion and freedom of association, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia recently used religious association and religious membership as factors for aggravating the criminal sentences of associates and members of the Black Hebrew religion; however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned one of the two decisions of the district court, declaring in United States v. Lemon that religious association cannot be considered as an aggravating factor in a criminal sentencing proceeding. Careful reading of this decision indicates that the court adopted the following holding: an individual may not be penalized for associating with members of a protected organization unless the organization has illegal aims, and the individual intends to further those aims. Although prior case law has not directly addressed the issue of whether a convicted person may have his/her religious association considered as an aggravating factor at sentencing, the communist cases and the bail cases do highlight relevant principles of first amendment law and suggest appropriate concerns in structuring an analysis. In accordance with the communist cases, the framework for analysis of this issue should distinguish between crimes that arise from a general illegal aim of an organization and crimes committed by members of an association as isolated incidents. The proper framework for analysis should include three tiers: (1) determining whether the association to which the defendant belongs has illegal goals, (2) determining whether the crime committed by the defendant constitutes one of the illegal goals of the association, and (3) determining whether the defendant is an active member of the organization and committed the crime with the knowledge and specific intent of furthering the organization's illegal goals. The court failed to establish a middle tier for determining whether the crime committed constituted one of the illegal goals of the association. The court's framework also failed to consider whether the defendant is an active member of the organization. A total of 206 footnotes are provided.