A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a Muslim prison inmate in Arkansas, Gregory H. Holt (also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad), can grow a short beard for religious reasons. The case is The case is Holt v. Hobbs, 13-6827. It represents a trifecta loss. The federal magistrate (Joe J. Volpe), the district court judge (Brian S. Miller), and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (Judges Bye, Arnold, and Shepherd) all ruled against Holt only to see a unanimous Supreme Court reject their reasoning. Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor both wrote concurring opinions.
Notably, Magistrate Volpe recommended denial of this claim even though he stated in the hearing: “I look at your particular circumstance and I say, you know, it’s almost preposterous to think that you could hide contraband in your beard.”
Holt cited the hadiths, accounts of the acts or statements of the Muhammad and the attributed statement of Muhammad that Muslims are commanded to “cut the mustaches short and leave the beard.”
More than 40 state prison systems allow short beards and most allow longer ones. States like Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia bar beards except under limited conditions.
Holt challenged the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) grooming policy under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a)(1)-(2), and sought a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. He claimed that one of his fundamentalist Muslim beliefs was that he must grow a beard and that the prison burdened his ability to practice his religion though a grooming policy, which allowed trimmed mustaches but no other facial hair. The policy allowed quarter-inch beards only for a diagnosed dermatological problem. Mr. Holt sought permission to maintain a half- inch beard –insisting that it would balance his religious beliefs with ADC’s security needs. The prison insisted that it had accommodated Holt in a variety of ways including a prayer rug and a list of distributors of Islamic material, corresponding with a religious advisor, allowing to maintain the required diet and observe religious holidays. Prison officials also claimed the grooming policy was necessary to further ADC’s interest in prison security.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., wrote the opinion. He was notably the the author of the majority opinion in Hobby Lobby, where a sharply divided Court ruled in favor of the religious rights of a private business in a dispute under the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare.
Alito rejected the claims of prison security in the denial of a beard. Alito applied the same legal test that used in June in the Hobby Lobby case in finding that the facts “easily satisfied” the requirement of showing that the ban on beards burdened his religious practices. While officials claimed that even short beards can conceal “anything from razor blades to drugs to homemade darts” or SIM cards, the Court did not buy it. Alito found that security “would be seriously compromised by allowing an inmate to grow a half-inch beard is hard to take seriously . . . An item of contraband would have to be very small indeed to be concealed by a half-inch beard and a prisoner seeking to hide an item in such a short beard would have to find a way to prevent the item from falling out.” He further noted that, despite this stated concern, Arkansas prisons do not require “shaved heads or short crew cuts.”
The case is an important reaffirmation of the Hobby Lobby reasoning, this time with all nine justices signing on. The opinion is replete with citations to the earlier case. RLUIPA is the sister statute to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), which was applied in Hobby Lobby. The opinion cuts back a bit on the excessive deference afforded to prisons in past cases, though only with regard to religious practices:
RLUIPA, like RFRA, “makes clear that it is the obligation of the courts to consider whether exceptions are required under the test set forth by Congress.” . . . That test requires the Department not merely to explain why it denied the exemption but to prove that denying the exemption is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. Prison officials are experts in running prisons and evaluating the likely effects of altering prison rules, and courts should respect that expertise. But that respect does not justify the abdication of the responsibility, conferred by Congress, to apply RLUIPA’s rigorous standard. And without a degree of deference that is tantamount to unquestioning acceptance, it is hard to swallow the argument that denying petitioner a 1⁄2-inch beard actually furthers the Department’s interest in rooting out contraband.
Eighteen states supported Arkansas and all states will now have to meet this more demanding standard in such conflicts.
Holt is by no means a sympathetic character, but that is not relevant to the basis for his constitutional claim. He is serving a life sentence for a vicious assault on his ex-girlfriend in which he slit her throat and stabbed her in the chest. He has also threatened to “wage jihad” against various people.
This is an impressive win for University of Virginia School of Law Professor Douglas Laycock and his legal team in their representation of Holt.
Here is the opinion: Holt v. Hobbs, 13-6827.
Do you think we could get the NFL to require all hair must be inside the helmet?
How three levels of the court system blew this one is really incredible. Any citizen should understand freedom to practice your religion. I like the idea f Muslims wearing beards. Then I can move away.
Question, in the Paris attack the woman uncovered her face. Punishable offense? I thought Muslim women were to say nothing and walk behind their husband. As women from other places, where they ignored this nonsense, became part of the attackers, returning to ancient laws would be a problem.
“Should we not still treat him as we would like to be treated?”
I hope you were joking.
No. If a member of our civil society is found guilty of violating the social contract then that person should have no expectation of equal treatment under the law. That person’s actions have led to a disablement of his natural right to life (in some cases), liberty, property, pursuit of happiness. If he should desire to have his natural rights re-enabled then he should meet strict tests of rehabilitation.
Olly, I was not joking.
While we agree upon many things, I have a soft heart toward other human beings. People make mistakes in life. I work much with the poor, and it is very difficult not to find a poor person these days who is not a criminal. Many are liars, cheaters, thieves, murderers, etc. I believe in second chances. Many who do not have a criminal history are simply smarter and have not been caught, and probably never will get caught. Some of the best marauders are our government officials who make the rules.
While a criminal certainly has violated the social contract, and we perceive ourselves justified to take away certain fundamental rights because of it, do we really have to strip him of all rights? Would you think torture is then justified? Why not punish them harshly for his crimes? What about stockades and floggings? Do you support these remedies? What about his right to redress grievances from prison? Should these rights also be taken from him?
I favor an approach toward prisoners that leaves them with as much humanity as possible. It really does not harm anyone in the prison to allow a man to grow a beard. He may for all effective purposes be a slave under his master which is society, but we can be good and loving slave masters rather than harsh and cruel masters.
I still think the accommodation he is asking for is reasonable and not burdensome to the prison administration. The question hinges on how much of his humanity should we be allowed to strip from him?
My apologies. I overlooked the slitting the throat part of the battery in this article.
The point of prison is a lack of freedom. If you want to grow a beard, don’t slit someone’s throat.
This is the correct answer.
DBQ, I think he is in prison for burglary and domestic battery, not slitting someone’s throat.
Personally, I would favor a legal system that forced him to pay restitution and not be held in prison. Unfortunately, our legal system has developed the expensive prison system instead. He is still our neighbor, whether in prison or not. His crime does not require a death penalty. He has a chance to amend his ways, does he not? Do we have to be so petty in our rules of confinement? Should we not still treat him as we would like to be treated?
DBQ – I think the point of prison is loss of freedom not loss of beard. 😉
To make a religious argument shouldn’t the person be required to strictly follow all tenets of that religion?
I’m glad the courts are siding with freedom of religion.
I have to observe that there appears to be more freedom of religion in prison than in the military, where chaplains are not allowed to preach.
Religion aside, if an inmate’s hair can be 1/2 inch or longer, what does it matter if his facial hair is 1/2 inch?
I’m not in law enforcement, so I don’t see the difference. And Nick is right, there are always … let’s call them “other hiding places.”
This is a great victory for liberty. I am glad to see the court agreeing unanimously on this issue.
I worked in a Federal Prison in the 70’s when beards were not allowed. It is really a pretext to say that beards can hide contraband. The best place to hide contraband is in your rectum. Looked in my share of them! Prisons need to find a balance. You can’t run a prison like a boot camp because you have a much different “clientele” in prison. Successful prisons run a tight ship but give inmates some input, some leeway. NEVER is leeway given if it involves security or safety. So, to enforce a no beard rule on the pretext of “safety” is illegitimate. That breeds contempt for all rules. But, in other categories, not safety or security related, smart prison staff, give inmates some room to breathe. I was fortunate to work in a well run prison. The population were hardened, seasoned, older men. They were some of the baddest in the country. But, we had order and peace. Certainly there were isolated incidents of violence. But, they were isolated, not systemic.
Good ruling. I’m glad it was unanimous.
An easy decision for the Court as long as you don’t suspend your intelligence and uncritically accept everything the government says. Sad to see the increasing hostility of liberals to religion though, given liberals historic support for religious toleration.
I’d let him have the beard, but not the Islam.
It would appear the military treats recruits with less respect than these inmates get. Run the prison system like boot camp; make every inmate look and dress the same. And don’t run the clock run if they don’t cooperate.
And how in the hell did the Koch brothers get into this discussion? Koch Derangement Syndrome?
The point of prison is a lack of freedom. If you want to grow a beard, don’t slit someone’s throat.
At least he wasn’t going for a sex change at taxpayers expense.
Court affirms Mass. murderer’s right to get sex change in prison
BOSTON – A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a judge’s ruling granting a taxpayer-funded sex change operation for a transgender inmate
serving a life sentence for a murder conviction, saying receiving medically necessary treatment is a constitutional right that must be protected “even if that treatment strikes some as odd or unorthodox.”
U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf ruled in 2012 that the state Department of Correction must provide sex reassignment surgery for Michelle Kosilek,
who was born as Robert Kosilek and is serving a life sentence for the killing of his wife in 1990.
I have to agree with the thinking here. 1/2 inch is not oppressive for the state to deal with.
Them old dreams are only in your head.
BD
Why can’t we contain our selves? It’s amusing to see people walk around covered in sheets, with curly fries dangling from their ears, shaving the top half but not the bottom half, forgetting to unwrap the head from the towel, etc. However, in prison, isn’t life supposed to be devoid of these circus aspects? Is it supposed to be fun and games, and costumes?
Congrats to Laycock!
That thing cut me off. Its all in the eye of the beholder. And we hold these truths to be self evident. If you can raise a religious claim you might get Alito. If the Koch Brothers raise the claim you will get Alito and the other RepubliCons.
This guy gets a beard and the Koch Brothers own Congress. Hobby Lobby, bo bobby, banna fanna fo mobby. Religion!