January 20, 2015

The Supreme Court requires an exemption from the anti-beard policy for prisoners with religious needs.

As I predicted here, the prisoner who used the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act to challenge the prison policy against beards has won in the Supreme Court.

Here's the PDF of the just-issued opinion in Holt v. Hobbs. It's unsurprisingly unanimous. The main opinion is written by Justice Alito, and there are concurring opinions by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor.

The prisoner showed that he had a sincere belief that his religion — Islam — requires him to have a beard, so it didn't matter that some Muslims believe a believe a beard isn't required or that the prisoner believed that if the government forced him to shave, he'd get "credit" in his religion for trying to do what was required. There was a substantial burden on his religion within the meaning of the statute, and that meant the government had to show that imposing that burden was necessary to serve its compelling interest.

As explained at the earlier post — at the first link, above — the government's assertions came across as ludicrous because the prisoner's beard was only one-half inch long. Justice Alito wrote:

An item of contraband would have to be very small indeed to be concealed by a 1⁄2-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. Since the Department does not demand that inmates have shaved heads or short crew cuts, it is hard to see why an inmate would seek to hide contraband in a 1⁄2-inch beard rather than in the longer hair on his head....

We agree that prisons have a compelling interest in the quick and reliable identification of prisoners, and we acknowledge that any alteration in a prisoner’s appearance, such as by shaving a beard, might, in the absence of effective countermeasures, have at least some effect on the ability of guards or others to make a quick identification. But even if we assume for present purposes that the Deartment’s grooming policy sufficiently furthers its interest in the identification of prisoners, that policy still violates RLUIPA as applied in the circumstances present here. The Department contends that a prisoner who has a beard when he is photographed for identification purposes might confuse guards by shaving his beard....
Why did Justice Ginsburg write a second opinion? Only to write one sentence distinguishing this case from Hobby Lobby:
Unlike the exemption this Court approved in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U. S. ___ (2014), accommodating petitioner’s religious belief in this case would not detrimentally affect others who do not share petitioner’s belief.
Justice Sotomayor's concurring opinion is longer. She expresses approval for deferring to the expertise of prison officials (which had been stressed in an earlier Supreme Court case called Cutter v. Wilkinson):
I do not understand the Court’s opinion to preclude deferring to prison officials’ reasoning when that deference is due — that is, when prison officials offer a plausible explanation for their chosen policy that is supported by whatever evidence is reasonably available to them.
But in this case, the government had "little more than unsupported assertions."

28 comments:

mccullough said...

Since other states and the federal prison system allow half-inch beards, Arkansas needed pretty compelling evidence that stashing weapons in short beards presented a unique problem to them. It might have helped if Arkansas required short hair on the the scalp as well.

Good to see the liberals on the Court standing up for religious rights after their fascist dissent in Hobby Lobby.

John Thacker said...

Not a surprise that it was unanimous. A bit of byplay in the decisions-- Alito uses his decision to repeatedly city Hobby Lobby and say that it's the same principle, whereas Sotomayor and Ginsburg concur in order to try to distinguish this from Hobby Lobby.

iowan2 said...

Doesn't the mans religion require him to obey the law? If he Ignores his religion teaching, breaks the law, then I conclude he is by his own actions, not qualifying for religious exemption.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

But is his belief real Islam? I thought we had to wait for Obama and Dean to decided which tenants of Islam is the real Islam?

James Pawlak said...

Sharia Law for followers of the criminal-terrorist ideology known as "Islam".

Why was this critter in prison?

Ann Althouse said...

"Doesn't the mans religion require him to obey the law? If he Ignores his religion teaching, breaks the law, then I conclude he is by his own actions, not qualifying for religious exemption."

That's kind of what the district court said. That would have the absurd result of giving exemptions only to those who convincingly claim a sincere religious belief in defying the law. But RLUIPA is a statute that is part of the law and it's a law designed to protect religious persons who are experiencing burdens from the compulsions of government.

RLUIPA could be repealed. It's not constitutionally required.

Wince said...

Is the standard really "religious needs"?

rhhardin said...

The religion shouldn't be required.

Ann Althouse said...

"Is the standard really "religious needs"?"

"Needs" is my word. The statutory language is "a substantial burden on the religious exercise." It's really a person's interest in avoiding a substantial burden on the exercise of religion. The question isn't one of absolute necessity, but substantial burden. Don't let my word draw you away from the statutory text.

Ann Althouse said...

"The religion shouldn't be required."

When I said "It's not constitutionally required," I meant RLUIPA is not constitutionally required. The statute is not a restatement of what the Constitution requires to protect the free exercise of religion.

Under the Free Exercise Clause, neutral, generally applicable governmental policies are accepted. (The policy in this case may, however, have violated the FE Clause because prisoners with a dermatological condition were allowed to have half-inch beards.)

RLUIPA requires something from the government: the accommodation of the religion of institutionalized persons.

rhhardin said...

But you should have an equal protection claim that if religious people can have beards, so can you, a nonreligious person.

lgv said...

I am unsurprised by the decision. I'm surprised it was unanimous. I like Sotomayor's additional comment.

After giving it some thought, I wouldn't mind repealing the RLUIPA.

Larry J said...

iowan2 said...
Doesn't the mans religion require him to obey the law?


Perhaps it depends on the law. IIRC, the Koran doesn't have a "render unto Ceaser" clause but does say things about laws written by infidels. Of course, I could be wrong.

John Thacker said...

"I meant RLUIPA is not constitutionally required."

So the Court says now. The Court said that the standard under RLUIPA was required from the mid 60s until the late 80s. Back then, it was the liberals that supported the idea and the conservatives opposed, perhaps because the religious groups discussed were small minorities. Scalia wrote the decision (Employment Division v Smith, 1990) overturning the old rule, but Congress is free to go further than the Constitution.

Fernandinande said...

James Pawlak said...
Why was this critter in prison?


Sentence is life for cutting girlfriend’s throat

A Little Rock man was sentenced to life in prison on Thursday for cutting his girlfriend’s throat after jurors saw letters he’d written describing himself as an “American Taliban” and calling for death to America: Gregory Houston Holt had also written letters to jailers in April that jurors did not see until they had delivered their verdict in which Holt promised a potentially deadly “jihad” inside the courtroom should “the verdict in my trial go south”; in letters, he also wrote he dreamed of dying a martyr in a jihad, and that he wasn’t bound by American laws but only recognized the Shariah law of Islam.

Therefore the government lawyers say he deserves special treatment.

Thorley Winston said...

RLUIPA could be repealed. It's not constitutionally required.

Agreed or amend it so that it no longer applies to those incarcerated in State and federal prisons.


cubanbob said...

Thorley Winston is right. Truly religious people generally speaking do not wind up in prison to begin with. I'll take their jail house conversion seriously after they get out on parole and live a religious life.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
pm317 said...

Elsewhere, Muslims are beheading and assassinating Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Here the SCOTUS is being considerate of a prisoner's Muslim religion and his beard. This is crazy.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

Shapes of things to come. Liberals are likely to be unpleasantly surprised at the ways that their Muzzie buddies use religious freedom arguments to further a distinctly illiberal agenda.

richard mcenroe said...

If I tell the court I am a Sikh, will I be permitted to carry my religiously-mandated knife with me in jail?

pm317 said...

@ richard mcenroe

Yes, indeed! Good question. If Islam mandated something similar, you bet they would have fought for it in the courts.

TennLion said...

Thank heavens he wasn't a Christian refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

David said...

I predict a significant expansion in the number of things people (and especially those in prison) will need to do/wear/grow in order to express and exercise their sincere religious beliefs.

Not all of these will be made up just to mindfuck the prison authorities, but indeed the possibilities are large.

I am thinking hair, clothing, prayer and meditation techniques, ritual sexual gratification, musical expression, prayer ceremonies, access to water immersion, the ability to see the open sky (Stonehengians have rights too), access to sacred animals, fruit loops and root beer.

Surely there is more. God is limitless, and the human imagination is not that far behind.

Quaestor said...

Spot on, Richard McEnroe.

The Sikh sword (dagger, really) is called a kirpan, and unlike Mr.Holt's beard really is a religious requirement of long standing, since 1699 according to Wikipedia. There have at least two court decisions that have held bans against the carrying of these weapons unconstitutional, not just contrary to the RLUIPA statute.

Originally kirpans were full-length swords, the daggar form appeared as a compromise with British civil law during the Raj. Recently there have been compromises with laws and regulations both here and in Europe that have required the kirpan to be rendered harmless in order to be carried in schools, on public transport, etc., such as welding the daggar into it scabbard. Sihk clergy are unhappy with these measures since according to the tradition the kirpan must be a useful weapon, and it must be maintained faithfully - sharp, clean, and brightly polished - on pain of flogging or excommunication. Ergo the litigations continue.

Interestingly the Sikh religious duty to carry a sword was promulgated specifically to resist Islamic efforts to impose sharia. Instead of arguing endless with the morons of the TSA perhaps we should encourage armed Sikhs to travel by air as often as possible, just in case...

Annie said...

Not seeing how the Hobby Lobby decision was detrimental to anyone. It doesn't prevent anyone from getting an abortion. But to decide against Hobby Lobby it would have been quite detrimental in forcing those - religious or otherwise (there are plenty of non-religious who do not want to be forced to pay for baby killing) to pay for something they find abhorrent and against their sincere beliefs, religious or not.

Now given this decision, him showing he sincerely believed his religion dictates such a thing, by claiming it such, and the Supremes siding with him.....surely they will side with Christians who do not want to participate in events that are contrary to their sincerely held beliefs of marriage, right?

Revenant said...

Doesn't the mans religion require him to obey the law? If he Ignores his religion teaching, breaks the law, then I conclude he is by his own actions, not qualifying for religious exemption.

That would be a dangerous precedent to set. Left-wing government officials could cite Jesus' "render unto Caesar" comments to prove that conservative Christians aren't really Christian at all, and thus can be infringed upon with impunity.

Achilles said...

cubanbob said...

"Thorley Winston is right. Truly religious people generally speaking do not wind up in prison to begin with. I'll take their jail house conversion seriously after they get out on parole and live a religious life."

TennLion said...

"Thank heavens he wasn't a Christian refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding."

Does anyone see where I am going here? Be careful what you wish for.

And Muslims are just following sharia law when they slit a girlfriends throat if she dishonored the family by the way. Most of these people believe they have a duty not to follow our laws.