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.
Obama is not the mainstream of this country. He is on the fringe and was only elected and re-elected by flying under false pretenses.
He is a very effective con man.
The citizens of River City are finally waking up.
trooperyork – We’ve got trouble in River City!!!
Her next comment proved to be more forthcoming and genuine. You should read the drivel @ that echo chamber. It is pee your pants funny.
David, You are a well adjusted, positive, nice person. Remember the bad ol’ days when anything we said, all verifiable, was met w/ “suspicions” and “doubt.” Well, those days are ALMOST over. If you don’t dignify McCarthyesque “suspicions” w/ an answer, they usually cease. Just sayn’.
Thanks for the compliment, Nick.
I do remember a day back in 2013 when Blouise said, “I believe that davidm2575 is one of the best examples of a compassionate conservative that we have ever had on this blog.”
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/11/21/palin-2/#comment-703021
With regard to freedom of religion; I don’t believe that has to extend to outward accommodations of that faith in prison. Truth faith ultimately resides in the heart and in a free society you have the inalienable right to express that; but that right of expression should be disabled in prison and given as a privilege. Inmates should have to earn their way back to having their natural rights fully enabled. Maybe a little humility would teach people to value and respect the natural rights they have, as well as those of others.
Slave analogies are so common in our society as to be ubiquitous – “I’m a Slave to You”, slave to society, slave to keeping white carpet clean . . . Politicians say African Americans are slaves to the rich, slaves to Republicans, and slaves to their own Democratic Party.
Jumping all over slave analogies is like jumping all over military terms used in politics.
Remarking that circumstances can make someone a helpless slave to society, while you may not agree with such a theory, is not inherently racist. Democrats say such things every day – if you’re poor you’re doomed to remain poor, you’re at the whim of old white men, etc etc.
I agree with David that poverty is a risk factor for crime. Statistically, risk factors for crime include poverty, having a single mother, or being in a foster home. Latch key kids who grow up in bad neighborhoods have a very high risk of getting into trouble or with the wrong crowd. Unless they have a seismic shift in their thinking, the status quo will just lead them down the road to prison or an early death.
I also think that one purpose of prison is justice for the victims, and negative reinforcement to discourage crime.
That said, prisoners have freedom of religion. Since most rights are curtailed while incarcerated, the only caveat, in my opinion, is that they cannot make disruptive or expensive demands. If someone can’t eat meat or pork or meat with cheese, make sure there are vegetarian side dishes or options, but don’t go to the ends of the Earth to come up with 5 star vegan cuisine. I don’t think every prison should endure the expense of keeping a separate Kosher or Halal kitchen. If someone says they must exfoliate their skin with diamond dust as part of a religious ritual, they’re just going to have to wait until they get out. Otherwise, reasonable requests should be granted.
Paul,
I consider the source and dismiss it as more institutionalized, willful ignorance. Conservatism is a threat to their dependence on the state. The more I see people respond in that manner the more I know we are making a positive difference. 😀
David – your comment reminded me of one of my favorite indie movies, “First Time Felon.” It was based on a true story. A young man was convicted of a felony for selling heroin, and sent to an experimental boot camp. It was harsh and quite a challenge, but in the end, the camp tried to save a small town from a flood. The boot camp was tough because life was tough, and they had to learn the skills to deal with adversity.
This was a life changing moment for him, a paradigm shift. But he had thrown up such a hurdle with that conviction, that it was difficult for him to go straight. He ended up a success story, but anyone who’s child is beginning to stray should watch this with them.
Paul, if David is represents the mainstream of America, then God help the United States of America.
Inga – Obama officially represents our country and we are up the creek without a paddle.
In other news regarding Islam, approximately 800,000 Muslims participated in a rally against the magazine Charlie Hebdo in Chechnya, which has a total population of 1.3 million.
This demonstrates how widespread the problem of extremism, and intolerance for free speech, is in some regions.
Just think of how powerful the message would have been if they had come out in support of the victims of the terrorist massacre. But, predictably, they came together en masse to condemn the victim of violent Muslim extremism.
This is why we must be firm in fighting the spread of extremism to the US. We can already see the result of extremism on liberty and freedom of speech around the world.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/01/800000-muslims-rally-against-charlie-hebdo-in-chechnya-a-country-of-1-3-million-people/
The more I read these extreme right wing ideas on these comments sections the more I recognize that the rightists of this country have truly lost their way. We “others” need to be cognizant that this is abberant behavior and we should be work hard to make sure it doesn’t become any more mainstreamed than if already is. What I’ve read on RIL since the influx of rightists to this blog, the last several months, has become increasingly chilling and disturbing.
As I am wasting my time pointing out what should be obvious to normal decent human beings.
I am suspicious of the “work” he does with poor people. Perhaps they need to know how he truly feels about them and their situation.
Paul,
Given the body evidence in these blogs; you are simply wasting your time by responding to her. David on the other hand has demonstrated clear reasoning and logic and he’s certainly been intellectually honest in these discussions. I trust if he says that’s what is in his heart then who should be the first to say it is not?
Olly – you will read the ad hominem attack on the right to get the full intent of her meaning.
Inga – WE are the mainstream. Learn to live with it.
The idea that incarcerated people could be thought of as “slaves for all intents and purposes” and that society could be seen as “good and loving slave masters” is simply loathsome. Additionally, idea that the vast majority of poor people are criminals is equally as loathsome. How can someone actually think this way and think that it would be an acceptable notion to most normal people in a society? This is some extreme right wing rubbish.
Inga, it is difficult for me to see what is in your mind about the sentences being incongruent. About the only thing I can suspect on one part is that you do not understand my statement about slavery. Following is my statement, talking about the condition of those imprisoned in our penal system:
“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.”
Some people who fail to be studious in the law presume to think that the Constitution outlawed all forms of slavery. It did not. Our Constitution made an exception for a particular class of people who may become slaves. Some lawyers call this form of slavery, Constitutional Slavery. Other people are shocked by the term, Constitutional Slavery, but it is right there in our U.S. Constitution.
Read the Thirteenth Amendment, and you will find the following: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Do you see the exception there? Criminals. We may enslave criminals, and indeed we do. This is a form of slavery that still exists in the United States.
What is a slave? A slave is someone who is owned by another person and must do what his owner instructs him to do. A prisoner is a slave. A prisoner does not do what he wants to do. He must do what his master tells him to do. The criminal is imprisoned. He is often put in shackles. He is told who may visit him and who may not visit him. He is told how long visits will be allowed and when they are allowed. The prisoner is told when to go to bed, and when to wake up. He is told where he must go and where he must not go. He is made to work or not work, however his master directs him. All his actions are determined by the guards and administrators of the penal system, who act on behalf of society. We all own these slaves. I guess you never realized that you are a slave owner. You pay for his imprisonment, for his shackles, and for all his food and keep. You even pay the guards and warden to treat them the way you and others in society have determined to treat them.
My point is that *IF* we are comfortable being slave owners and imprisoning these people who violate the rules of society, at least let us be good slave owners and not bad ones. The primary problem with slavery was not the nature of indentured servitude. Some people would profit by being a slave or indentured servant. They need the discipline, and a good master who teaches them morality, virtue, the value of hard work, and contentment with their status in life. The homeless problem would be solved if we allowed slavery. In ancient Jewish communities, they allowed slavery, but the law said that slaves had to be released by their masters every 7 years. That was a time when all debts were forgiven and slaves were freed. In the United States, those laws did not exist. The less admirable side of human nature took over, and many of the slave masters mistreated their slaves. Some whipped their slaves for disobedience or slothfulness. Some maimed them. They put them in shackles and imprisoned them. The call to abolish slavery came about because of the gross mistreatment of slaves by selfish and narcissistic slave owners. The injury caused to slaves affected the sensibilities of everyone.
So back to my statement, I was simply making this analogy that if we are going to usurp the role of slave master to those we imprison, for whatever justification that we invent (they committed a crime!), then at least we should be good slave masters and not bad ones. The bottomline is that we should not mistreat prisoners, but treat them humanely despite whatever conviction may exist.
on 1, January 21, 2015 at 1:40 pmdavidm2575
While we agree upon many things, I have a soft heart toward other human beings. People make mistakes in life. Between these two thoughts lies a blatant incongruity. 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.
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. Between these two thoughts lies another blatant incongruity.. 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.
*******************************
All one can do is just shake one’s head. If anyone truly believes that David has a “soft heart for other human beings” as judged by his OWN words on these comments sections over the years, then I have a bridge to sell you. Again… Unbelievable.
Inga – if he continues to work with the poor after all he has said, then he does have a soft heart.
David,
We do agree on many things and compassion for our fellow human being is one of them. Our discussion in the other thread regarding natural rights really had me thinking about the behavior of people that would deny themselves the power of natural rights. It wasn’t until I recalled a scene from The Shawshank Redemption that the behavior made sense. Inmates (and my father was one; twice) become institutionalized; they become completely dependent on the system and unprepared for a return to civil society. Unfortunately, civil society has become institutionalized as well and this dependency culture has no desire for rehabilitation.
When the reward of criminal conduct outweighs the risk then what deterrent is prison? I recall in Plato’s Republic a discussion Socrates is having regarding which life is better: a just or unjust one. The point Thrasymachus is arguing is that leading an unjust life is more profitable and leads to greater happiness. Although Socrates blows this up, the point is that our culture rewards unjust behavior by making the consequences tolerable. My compassion is to a culture that is completely unaware they have become institutionalized. My compassion is to those struggling to “legally” free themselves from their dependency on the State.
Olly – some prisoners, not all, become institutionalized. Just as some slaves became institutionalized and returned to the plantations they came from to work after being freed. You can grow adjusted to anything. Stockholm syndrome shows us that abductees identify with their captors and tend to protect them when they are captured.
It’s amazing to hear someone speak out of both sides of his mouth so many times in just a few comments. Unbelievable.
Inga, not sure what you think you see as an incongruency, but I am certain it is your imagination.
The one thing I like about the bottom of society is that they do not have pretences and try to keep up a reputation or appearances. I am completely transparent with them and have no need to be otherwise. If I tell them they have to forsake lying if they want to get ahead in life, they accept that with humility. Most of them realize that they have failed and that their lack of virtue has led them to where they are in life. Lying, stealing, and unfaithfulness all lead a person to poverty. Prison too, because it takes everything they had in life, including their job, and from an economic perspective, they have to start over when they get out.
on 1, January 21, 2015 at 1:40 pmdavidm2575
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.
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.
*******************************
Wow. I wonder if the poor folks he “works” with know his low opinion of them. He could be a “slave” with a kind master, how nice.
I always thought that when people go to prison, as convicts they lose all their rights. I know–I’m being naive by today’s standards.
There is nothing to stop this man from praying, but having a beard or any special privilege should be out of the question.