BJC supports Muslim prisoner’s right to grow beard

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments weighing the rights of people in prison to exercise their religion against sensitivity to corrections officials in security matters.

The case, Holt v. Hobbs, involves a practicing Muslim serving a life sentence who seeks a religious exemption to an Arkansas Department of Corrections policy prohibiting any inmate from growing a beard.

Gregory Holt. (Photo courtesy of Religion & Ethics Newsweekly, via Arkansas Corrections)Inmate Gregory Holt, also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad, is arguing his request to grow a half-inch beard is reasonable, in part because the rule already permits an exemption for quarter-inch beards for medical reasons.

Holly Hollman, general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, said the case illustrates the need for the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a federal law passed in 2000.

The BJC, a Washington-based advocate for religious liberty and church-state separation representing 15 cooperating Baptist conventions and supporting congregations across the United States, led a broad coalition that worked for passage of the act.

“Prison officials undoubtedly have an interest in maintaining security—and that interest affects every aspect of a prisoner’s life,” Hollman said.

However, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act “was designed to prevent overly broad or exaggerated security claims that would unduly restrict the religious liberty of prisoners,” she said.

Friend-of-the-court brief

This summer, the BJC filed a friend-of-the-court brief   asking the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling by the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that prison officials were best qualified to determine if the ban on beards—even those grown for religious reasons—is necessary for prison safety.

Holt filed an appeal, saying the grooming policy “substantially burdened his ability to practice his religion,” a restriction allowed under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act only to further a “compelling” state interest by the “least restrictive means.”

In this case, prison officials “failed to show how accommodating religion will undermine the state’s interests,” Hollman said.

The same legal standard applies to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the law behind the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in June that Hobby Lobby could opt out of contraceptive coverage required by Obamacare because it violates religious beliefs of the company’s Southern Baptist owners.

A decision in Holt v. Hobbs is expected before June.