Supreme Court Rules That Muslim Prisoner Has Right to Grow Beard

[DonViejo]

Source: Slate

Prisoners have the right to grow beards for religious reasons, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tuesday morning in the case of Muslim Arkansas inmate Gregory Holt. Arkansas officials had argued Holt’s half-inch beard presented a security risk, while Holt’s representatives said a 2000 law called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act protected his right to grow it. From USA Today:

The unanimous opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, had been widely anticipated despite two lower court decisions upholding the state's no-beard policy.

"We readily agree that (the state) has a compelling interest in staunching the flow of contraband into and within its facilities," Alito said. "But the argument that this interest would be seriously compromised by allowing an inmate to grow a half-inch beard is hard to take seriously."

Widespread skepticism toward the state’s security-driven argument was obvious in October when justices heard oral arguments in the case, SCOTUSblog wrote at the time. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a concurrence joined by Sonia Sotomayor, noted that she believes the religious freedom extended to Holt is of a different character than that extended to the Hobby Lobby store chain in a much more controversial 2014 court ruling. That ruling held that Hobby Lobby could cite religious beliefs in choosing not to provide contraceptives through its employee health insurance plan. Wrote Ginsburg, who dissented in the Hobby Lobby case: “Unlike the exemption this court approved (in Hobby Lobby), accommodating petitioner’s religious belief in this case would not detrimentally affect others who do not share petitioner's belief.”

###


Read more: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/01/20/supreme_court_beard_muslim_prisoner_ok_justices_say.html?wpsrc=slatest_newsletter&sid=5388f1c6dd52b8e4110003de

[closeupready]

1. I am having a sad for DU's Islamophobes.

[elleng]

2. Excellent!

[onehandle]

3. Doesn't impact corporations or the rich? SCOTUS votes fairly.

Yes I meant 'votes.'

[Ash_F]

4. That is a surprising vote count.

That said, the states argument was nonsensical, lazy and stupid. What were their lawyers thinking?

Embarrassing for Arkansas.

[closeupready]

5. "Embarrassing for Arkansas" - nah. Even the Democrats no longer pretend not to hate muslims.

[Ash_F]

6. Embarrassing how sloppy and uninspired their arguments were

They had a fair number of close ideological allies on the court. They could have won if they were better prepared. They clearly weren't.

They wasted their tax dollars.

[happyslug]

13. If this was a constitutional challenge the States would have won

But this was challenged under Federal Law passed in 2000, see my post below for details.

[branford]

7. An entirely unsurprising decision, but I'm glad it was unanimous.

I'm curious if other more militant Muslim prisoners now might try growing far longer beards under this ruling, that actually could be used to conceal contraband, and if and how courts will respond.

[djg21]

9. Probably wouldn't be allowed.

And a restriction on a longer beards likely would be constitutional. SCOTUS has long recognized the valid penological interest in preventing the trafficking of contraband and protecting institutional security, and that restrictions on religious liberties may be reasonably limited in favor of such interests. Inmates often try to hide weapons and other contraband in their clothing and on their body. Items like razor blades and stabbing weapons can easily be hidden in lengthy hair or facial hair. This would pose an obvious risk both to other inmates and to corrections staff. A 1/2 inch beard may not pose a problem, but a longer beard certainly would.

[branford]

11. I agree, although I'm curious if certain litigous inmates might push hard enough

that the federal court will be forced to set a maximum beard length of some sort and/or constitutional beard length standard of review.

[bluestateguy]

8. Whatever the prison guard union and police favor, I'm against

So, good decision.

[Nye Bevan]

10. Fine by me.

A half-inch beard is clearly not any kind of security risk. This was obviously just vindictiveness for the sake of it.

[happyslug]

12. Here is the actual opinion, if any one wants to read it

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

First this is NOT a First Amendment Case, but one under:

We hold that the Department’s policy, as applied in this case, violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 114 Stat. 803, 42 U. S. C. §2000cc et seq., which prohibits a state or local government from taking any action that substantially burdens the religious exercise of an institutionalized person unless the government demonstrates that the action constitutes the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.

In simple language the court ruled the State Rules Violated Federal Law NOT the US Constitution.

Congress enacted RLUIPA and its sister statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq., “in order to provide very broad protection for religious liberty.” Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at 4). RFRA was enacted three years after our decision in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872 (1990), which held that neutral, generally applicable laws that incidentally burden the exercise of religion usually do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Id., at 878–882.