Written by Don Byrd
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to weigh in on the question of whether prison grooming policies of the Arkansas Department of Corrections, requiring inmates to shave, violate the religious freedom rights under the First Amendment or the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) of prisoners whose religion forbids it. RLUIPA prohibits the state from substantially burdening an inmates’s religious exercise unless the burden is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest.
The case is Holt v. Hobbs. The 8th Circuit previously ruled that the policy is permissible to meet the compelling security interests of the state. The plaintiff argues, however, that grooming policies in other jurisdictions allowing inmates limited facial demonstrates that Arkansas’ policy is not necessary to meet its security objectives.
Law professor and blogger Eugene Volokh provides some additional context and details surrounding the case here.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post’s Robert Barnes wonders whether the Court will accept the petition in the controversial New Mexico case involving a photography company found to have violated the civil rights of a same-sex couple under state law by refusing to provide services for their wedding. The case is largely considered the impetus behind many controversial state laws like Arizona’s SB 1062, which would have bolstered the rights of companies to refuse such service when contrary to their religious beliefs, had the governor not vetoed it. Elane Photography LLC v. Willock is scheduled for consideration during the conference on March 21.
Cases like Holt v. Hobbs, as well as the contraception coverage cases slated for oral argument later this month, give the Court the opportunity to provide some definition to Congress’ no substantial burden unless compelling interest standard enshrined in laws like RFRA and RLUIPA. Stay tuned.
