Written by Don Byrd
Via Religion Clause, the 5th Circuit this week ruled that the grooming and headwear policies of the Texas prison system violate the religious liberty rights of a Muslim inmate under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). David Rasheed Ali challenged the state’s denial of his request to wear a 4-inch beard and a knit skullcap as required by his faith. The court cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 Holt v Hobbs decision, in which an Arkansas inmate successfully argued that the state failed to justify its refusal to allow him to grow a 1/2-inch beard.
While the appeals court in Ali’s case found that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) does have a compelling interest in preventing the transfer of contraband within a prison, and agreed with the state that a 4-inch beard poses a greater security risk than the 1/2-inch beard at issue in Holt. The state’s blanket ban on beards greater than 1/2-inch, however, does not meet RLUIPA’s requirement that the burden on religion must be the “least restrictive means” of furthering that interest.
Here is an excerpt from the ruling:
The trial court found that when searching male inmates, TDCJ’s procedure is to have COs visually inspect short hair and “require inmates with longer hair to shake out their own hair with their fingers.” It also found that TDCJ policy is to deny an inmate a religious devotional item if an inmate misuses that item or “present[s] a security risk based on documented behavior.” The court then held that an effective alternative to banning all four-inch beards would be to have the CO perform the same search of a beard “as is done [for] searches of hair”: the CO can visually inspect the beard and, if necessary, have the inmate run his fingers through his beard. The court also noted that, in conjunction with these searches, TDCJ could revoke an inmate’s beard privilege if he abused it or refused to comply with the searches.
The trial court did not err in light of the record.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court yesterday declined to take up the case of Knight v. Thompson, another challenge to prison grooming standards under RLUIPA. In Knight, a Native American inmate sought relief from a denial of his request for long, uncut hair as required by his faith. Here, the outcome was different. The 11th Circuit last year applied Holt in ruling that the Alabama Department of Corrections successfully demonstrated that banning long, uncut hair was the least restrictive way to achieve its compelling safety, hygiene, discipline, and security goals.
The Supreme Court’s denial leaves that decision in place.
You can read more about the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) at the Baptist Joint Committee’s RLUIPA resource page here.
