AAC
Family & Friends
» » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » »
U.S. Supreme Court: inmate has religious freedom to grow beard
I
n an important decision that could affect county jail inmate grooming policies, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in December 2014 that an Arkansas Department of Correction (DOC) prison inmate’s religious beliefs were violated by DOC’s policy that would not allow an inmate to grow a beard as required by his religion. The case, Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. ____ (2015), was filed by Arkansas inmate Gregory Holt, a practicing Muslim also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad, who alleged that the DOC’s grooming policy, which prohibits inmates from growing beards unless they have a particular dermatological condition, violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, reversed the decision of the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and held that DOC’s grooming policy violated RLUIPA insofar as it prevents an inmate from growing a halfinch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs. Holt objected on religious grounds to DOC’s grooming policy which provided that “[n]o inmates will be permitted to wear facial hair other than a neatly trimmed mustache that does not extend beyond the corner of the mouth or over the lip.” The policy made no exception for inmates who objected on religious grounds but did contain an exemption for prisoners with medical needs: “Medical staff may prescribe that inmates with a diagnosed dermatological problem may wear facial hair no longer than one quarter of an inch.” The policy provided, “[f ]ailure to abide by [the Department’s] grooming standards is grounds for disciplinary action.” Holt asked for permission to grow a beard and, although he believed that his faith required him not to trim his beard at all, he proposed a “compromise” under which he would grow only a half-inch beard. DOC denied his request. Holt then filed a pro se complaint in Federal District Court challenging the grooming policy under RLUIPA. The complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The Magistrate Judge emphasized in his opinion that “the prison officials are entitled to deference” and that the grooming policy allowed the inmate Holt to exercise his religion in other ways including praying on a prayer rug, maintaining the diet required by his faith, and observing religious holidays. The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed holding that the DOC had satisfied its burden showing that the grooming policy was the least restrictive means of furthering its compelling security interests. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision. RLUIPA protects “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief” and a prisoner’s request for an accommodation must be sincerely based on a religious belief and not some other motivation. Holt’s request to exercise his religion was for the growing of a beard that he believes is a dictate of his faith. In addition to showing that his exercise of religion was related to a sincerely held religious belief, petitioner Holt also had the burden under RLUIPA of establishing that DOC’s grooming policy substantially burdened that exercise of religion. The Court stated that the petitioner had met that burden, thus shifting the burden of proof to DOC to show that its refusal to allow petitioner to grow a half-inch beard “(1) was in furtherance of a compelling 12
Legal Corner
governmental interest; and (2) was the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” DOC argued that the grooming policy represented the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling interest in prison safety and security. DOC claims that safety and security were furthered by its policy in two speJONATHAN GREER cific ways. The first claim by DOC was that the no-beard policy prevents prisGeneral Counsel oners from hiding contraband. DOC made the argument that prisoners may use their beards to conceal all manner of prohibited items, including razors, needles, drugs and cell phone SIM cards. The Court disagreed with that argument, noting that the DOC did not demand that inmates have shaved heads or short crew cuts as they did beards and also that forbidding short beards was not the least restrictive means of preventing the concealment of contraband. The Court stated that DOC could satisfy its security concerns by simply searching inmates’ beards as they already conduct searches of prisoners’ hair and clothing. DOC’s second claim was that its grooming policy would prevent prisoners from disguising their identities. While the Court agreed that prisons have a compelling interest in the quick and reliable identification of prisoners, the Court disagreed that the no-beards policy furthered that interest by the fact that DOC already has a policy of photographing a prisoner both when he enters the prison and when his “appearance changes at any time during his incarceration,” which would aid in identification. Finally, the Court emphasized that although RLUIPA provides substantial protection for the religious exercise of institutionalized person, it also affords jail officials the ability to maintain security in three (3) key ways: •
In applying the RLUIPA standard, courts should not blind themselves to the fact that the analysis is conducted in the prison setting;
•
If an institution suspects that an inmate is using religious activity to cloak illegal activity, “prison officials may appropriately question whether a prisoner’s religiosity, asserted as the basis for a requested accommodation, is authentic.”; and
•
Even if a claimant’s religious belief is sincere, an institution might be entitled to withdraw an accommodation if the claimant abuses the exemption in a manner that undermines the prison’s compelling interests.
County sheriffs and jail administrators should remain cognizant of these issues when formulating any policies potentially affecting the exercise of religious beliefs of inmates. Editor’s Note: AAC Legal Counsel Jonathan Greer passed away April 18, 2015. COUNTY LINES, SPRING 2015
