Written by Don Byrd
Tomorrow morning, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of Holt v. Hobbs. The dispute centers around an Arkansas prisoner’s request for permission to grow a beard as required by his religious beliefs. While many states have accommodated such a request, Arkansas claims to do so would jeopardize their safety and security regulations. To get ready for the coverage the case is sure to receive tomorrow, check out the BJC’s Holt v. Hobbs resource page.
The plaintiff Gregory Holt claims the refusal violates his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which requires any substantial burden on an inmate’s religious exercise by the state must be necessary to achieve a compelling government interest. Assuredly, security and safety are compelling interests. The key question will likely be whether the ban on beards is the least restrictive way to achieve that goal.
The Baptist Joint Committee filed a brief with the court defending Holt’s religious liberty rights. The Arkansas Department of Corrections (ADC), they argue, should have to demonstrate why the grooming rules are necessary.
ADC must show that an exemption for Mr. Muhammad would undermine security at his facility . . . Here, ADC has provided no such evidence, despite the fact that Mr. Muhammad has been able to maintain a one-half-inch beard since October 2011. If Mr. Muhammad’s religious exemption posed a threat to prison security, it seems logical that ADC would be able to cite examples illustrating that over the past two and a half years Mr. Muhammad’s beard had made the Cummins Unit or Varner Unit more dangerous.
…
Surely, RLUIPA requires ADC to do more than simply say the magic words—safety and security of inmates and staff—in order to carry its statutory burden of persuasion. Yet under ADC’s theory of RLUIPA, the government need only make such bare assertions…
Come back here to the BJC Blog tomorrow for details of the Court’s argument.
