Menu
ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom®
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Articles
ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom®

U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Upholds Right of Prisoner to Wear Beard

Posted on January 20, 2015January 20, 2015 by Michael Peabody
Gregory Houston Holt, aka Abdul Maalik Muhammad
Gregory Houston Holt, aka Abdul Maalik Muhammad

Case:  Holt v. Hobbs, Decided January 20, 2015

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision that the Arkansas Department of Correction violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) when it prohibited a prisoner from growing a 1/2 inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs.

The Court used the standard from the recent Hobby Lobby decision finding that the person challenging the government’s action must meet the initial burden of 1) proving that his or her religious exercise is grounded in a sincerely held religious belief and 2) that the government’s action substantially burdens his or her religious exercise.

The Holt court found that petitioner Gregory Holt (aka Abdul Maalik Muhammad), an Arkansas inmate and Muslim who wished to grow a beard but was prohibited from Arkansas rules that prohibit prisoners from growing beards unless they have a diagnosed skin condition in which case they may grow a 1/4 inch beard. Holt (aka Muhammad) had tried to work out a compromise between his beliefs that would not allow him to trim his beard at all and the Arkansas limitations by requesting opportunity to grow only a 1/2 inch beard.

Prison officials had argued that beards posed a safety risk because they could be used to hide contraband and could be shaved to disguise identity.  Lower courts had dismissed Holt’s claim finding that the Department of Correction had satisfied the burden of showing that the prohibition was the “least restrictive means” of furthering a “compelling security interest” and that the courts should defer to prison officials when it comes to security.

Justice Alito, writing for the majority, found that there were ways to accommodate the religious beliefs of Holt and protect security such as photographing prisoners both with beards and without them, and the Court further argued that contraband could just as easily be hidden in hair or a mustache.

Justice Alito’s decision includes a useful primer on the Court’s 1990 Employment Division v. Smith case which would uphold a law that could inadvertently adversely affect people of faith if it was neutral toward religion, and the attempt of Congress to rectify it through the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which would require that government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability,” unless the government could show that the action was “in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and was “the  least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest.”

In 1997, the Supreme Court found that Congress had exceeded its powers when it attempted to apply this rule to the states in Boerne v. Flores.  RFRA still applied to Federal actions, but not state actions. After the Boerne decision, Congress used a different approach to the issue by invoking congressional authority under the Spending and Commerce Clauses when it passed RLUIPA to govern land use regulation and “institutionalized persons.” In short, the RFRA test was extended to the states insofar as religious land use issues and prisons are concerned but not to other state-level limitations on free exercise of religion.

Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor also filed concurring opinions. Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sotomayor, wrote a 1-paragraph concurring opinion in which she drew a distinction between this case and the Hobby Lobby case, pointing out that while she supported the decision, accommodating Holt’s beard, unlike accommodating Hobby Lobby’s religious beliefs against providing insurance for certain forms of contraception, “would not detrimentally affect others who do not share petitioner’s belief.”

Justice Sotomayor also wrote a separate concurrence, agreeing with the decision, but wanted to emphasize that prison security remains a “compelling state interest” and that the Court should defer to the expertise of prison officials when it comes to safety and allow them to state their case. The reason she voted with the majority was that the prison officials had failed to “demonstrate why the less restrictive policies petitioner [Holt] identified in the course of the litigation were insufficient to achieve its compelling state interest.”

The Court’s full decision and the two concurring opinions are available at:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-6827_5h26.pdf

Tweets by RelLibertyTV

Recent Posts

  • U.S. District Court Dismisses Hunter v. US Dept of Education Lawsuit

    U.S. District Court Dismisses Hunter v. US Dept of Education Lawsuit

    February 5, 2023
  • Colorado Court: Baker Must Provide "Non-Expressive" Cake to Transgender Customer

    Colorado Court: Baker Must Provide "Non-Expressive" Cake to Transgender Customer

    January 30, 2023
  • Supreme Court to Hear Christian Postal Employee Religious Discrimination Claim - Groff v. DeJoy

    Supreme Court to Hear Christian Postal Employee Religious Discrimination Claim - Groff v. DeJoy

    January 13, 2023
  • Analysis of AB 2098 and Its Potential to Suppress Free Speech of Medical Professionals in California

    Analysis of AB 2098 and Its Potential to Suppress Free Speech of Medical Professionals in California

    January 11, 2023
  • Idaho Supreme Court Denies Petition to Recognize Fundamental Right to Abortion

    Idaho Supreme Court Denies Petition to Recognize Fundamental Right to Abortion

    January 9, 2023

We are not a law firm, do not provide any legal services, legal advice or “lawyer referral services” and do not provide or participate in any legal representation.

©2023 ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom® | WordPress Theme by Superb Themes
Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experience, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}