Written by Don Byrd
Yesterday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Holt v. Hobbs. Advocates for the plaintiff Gregory Holt made the case that a ban on facial hair instituted by the Arkansas Department of Corrections violates his religious freedom rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which protects the free exercise rights of inmates.
K. Hollyn Hollman, General Counsel of The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, was in the courtroom for today’s hearing. She said the case shows the need for RLUIPA:
“Prison officials undoubtedly have an interest in maintaining security — and that interest affects every aspect of a prisoner’s life,” Hollman said. “RLUIPA, however, was designed to prevent overly broad or exaggerated security claims that would unduly restrict the religious liberty of prisoners. Here, the state has failed to show how accommodating religion will undermine the state’s interests.”
Prior to the hearing, the BJC filed an amicus brief urging the Court to side with the Muslim inmate. You can see the BJC’s Holt v Hobbs resource page here, and the RLUIPA resource page here.
Check back with the blog for highlights from the transcript and my reactions to the argument.
