Tomorrow, Thursday June 12th, the opinions in the Supreme Court case of Holt v Hobbs will hopefully be available. Gregory Holt, also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad was an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Corrections. As a practicing Salafi Muslim, Holt fought the grooming policy, which only allowed trimmed mustaches and quarter-inch beards for diagnosed dermatological problems.
Holt argued that his religious right was being infringed upon. Specifically, he asserted that the grooming policy was in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Act (RLUIPA).
His complaint was dismissed when evidence showed alternate ways of practicing his religion. The other reason for dismissal was the necessity of prison security. The two major issues that the Court needs to resolve is if the policy violates RLUIPA and whether a half-inch beard would satisfy the security goals sought by the policy.
I have a hard time believing that an extra quarter inch of facial hair will create a breach of security. Denying an individual the right to practice their religion is denying them a basic human right. Unfortunately in American prisons, inmates are regularly denied rights in order to 'maintain safety.' The same goes for individuals in solitary confinement. Many suffer from psychological problems due to lack of interaction, sunlight, and space. Just because a man is behind bars, does not mean all of his basic human rights should be compromised by general policies. I do not believe that allowing a religious man a half-inch beard will be detrimental in furthering a compelling government interest. The request is not drastic or substantially burdening.
With 17 amicus briefs submitted to the Court, there are definitely many parties involved and invested in this opinion. This case will hopefully lead to more justice behind bars.
Holt argued that his religious right was being infringed upon. Specifically, he asserted that the grooming policy was in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Act (RLUIPA).
His complaint was dismissed when evidence showed alternate ways of practicing his religion. The other reason for dismissal was the necessity of prison security. The two major issues that the Court needs to resolve is if the policy violates RLUIPA and whether a half-inch beard would satisfy the security goals sought by the policy.
I have a hard time believing that an extra quarter inch of facial hair will create a breach of security. Denying an individual the right to practice their religion is denying them a basic human right. Unfortunately in American prisons, inmates are regularly denied rights in order to 'maintain safety.' The same goes for individuals in solitary confinement. Many suffer from psychological problems due to lack of interaction, sunlight, and space. Just because a man is behind bars, does not mean all of his basic human rights should be compromised by general policies. I do not believe that allowing a religious man a half-inch beard will be detrimental in furthering a compelling government interest. The request is not drastic or substantially burdening.
With 17 amicus briefs submitted to the Court, there are definitely many parties involved and invested in this opinion. This case will hopefully lead to more justice behind bars.