By Bob Allen
Religious liberty advocates said a U.S. Supreme Court decision Jan. 20 affirming a devout Muslim prisoner’s right to grow a beard for religious reasons is a win for the religious liberty of all Americans.
The unanimous decision written by Justice Samuel Alito says an Arkansas Department of Corrections policy prohibiting inmates to grow beards except for medical reasons does not satisfy demands of a federal law that prohibits a state or local government from substantially burdening the religious exercise of institutionalized persons without a compelling interest and by the least restrictive means.
The case argued in October, Holt v. Hobbs, pitted the religious freedom of Arkansas inmate Gregory Holt, also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad, against security concerns about prisoners hiding contraband in prison or avoiding capture if they escape and change their appearance quickly by shaving off their facial hair.
Holt claimed that his religion teaches that men should not cut their beards at all but offered a compromise of keeping his trimmed to one-half inch in length. The policy allows for beards of one-quarter inch if there is a skin problem that would be aggravated by shaving.
Lower courts said a half-inch beard did not appear to pose a major concern but decided to defer to prison officials in matters of security and control of inmate populations. Alito, however, said the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 does not allow such “unquestioning acceptance” of policies that infringe on religious liberty.
While recognizing the state has a compelling interest in regulating contraband, the justices said the Department of Corrections failed to prove that the grooming policy furthers that interest. They said the department could not demonstrate why a one-half-inch beard for religious reasons is significantly more dangerous than a quarter-inch beard for medical reasons, nor explain why there isn’t a similar restriction on hair length, which likely is a better place to hide a weapon or drugs and could also be cut off to quickly alter appearance in the event of escape.
Even if prison officials had met that burden, the justices said, a complete ban on facial hair is not the least restrictive means of furthering those interests. Prisons could, for example, photograph prisoners clean-shaven when they enter prison and then later take another photo showing how they look both with and without facial hair.
Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and co-counsel in the case, called the Supreme Court ruling “a huge win for religious freedom and for all Americans.”
“What the Supreme Court said today was that government officials cannot impose arbitrary restrictions on religious liberty just because they think government knows best,” Rassbach said. “This is a victory not just for one prisoner in Arkansas, but for every American who believes and wants the freedom to act on those beliefs.”
Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, one of a number of religious-liberty groups that filed legal briefs in the case, said the inmate’s facial hair would present no threat to the rights of others.
“Prisons have unique security concerns, but that doesn’t mean they can impose irrational and arbitrary rules on inmates that infringe on religious freedom,” said Lynn, an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ. “The court today struck the proper balance.”
Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said the Supreme Court did the right thing in the case.
“Religious liberty isn’t a prize earned by those with the most political clout,” Moore said. “Religious liberty is a right given by God to all people. The Court here respected liberty of conscience and free exercise.”
The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, which worked with dozens of religious and civil-liberties organizations to secure passage of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act 15 years ago, also signed a brief siding with the Muslim prisoner in May.
“Everyone’s religious liberty is precious, but that of incarcerated persons is particularly fragile,” said J. Brent Walker, executive director of the BJC. “Both RLUIPA and the Court’s opinion appropriately balance that right with the need of penal institutions to preserve prison safety and security.”
RLUIPA, along with companion legislation, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, restored protections that were recognized under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution before 1990. That’s when the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in Employment Division v. Smith upholding an employer’s right to fire two workers who ingested peyote, a hallucinogenic drug, for sacramental purposes at a ceremony of their Native American church.
Congress responded in 1993 with RFRA, specifying that the government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless it can demonstrate such a burden furthers a “compelling government interest” and is “the least restrictive means” of achieving it.
After the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that Congress exceeded its authority in imposing RFRA on the states, Washington came up with RLUIPA, adding protections specifically for prisoners and for churches and other religious organizations against discrimination in zoning law restrictions on their property use.
In its friend-of-the-court brief with the American Jewish Committee and three other organizations, the Baptist Joint Committee said part of the law’s intended purpose was to elevate religious needs to a similar level as other considerations.
“In light of the high degree of protection that RLUIPA gives to inmates’ religious rights, it is illogical for the same institution to provide an almost identical accommodation for medical reasons, while denying that same accommodation for religious purposes,” the filing said.
Previous story:
Prison beard case is Supreme Court’s next church-state decision