Supreme Court issues big religious freedom ruling for Muslim prisoner

The Supreme Court delivered a unanimous ruling in favor of a Muslim prisoner’s right to grow a half-inch beard in an Arkansas prison, underscoring its broad view of religious liberty in a case that had united many different faiths. Sikh, Muslim, Catholic, and Jewish groups filed briefs in support of the prisoner, as did evangelical groups like Prison Fellowship and the Southern Baptists.

In a short, well-written opinion from Justice Samuel Alito, the nine justices upheld a broad reading of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), the sister law to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Section 3 of RLUIPA protects prisoners’ religious exercise while in prison.

The prisoner, Gregory Holt (also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad), had asked the Arkansas Department of Correction for permission to grow a half-inch beard as part of his religious practice. The department allowed mustaches and quarter-inch beards for prisoners with skin problems but had no exemption for religious beards. Prison officials denied Holt’s request, citing security concerns about prisoners smuggling contraband in beards. But the concern over smuggling in a half-inch beard “is hard to take seriously,” Alito wrote, especially since prisoners are allowed to grow longer hair on their heads. Most state and federal prison systems allow religious beards like Holt's.

“Prison officials are experts in running prisons and evaluating the likely effects of altering prison rules, and courts should respect that expertise,” Alito wrote. “But that respect does not justify the abdication of the responsibility, conferred by Congress, to apply RLUIPA’s rigorous standard.”

RLUIPA’s “rigorous standard” is the same religious freedom “test” for laws under RFRA. The government can only impose a “substantial burden” on religious practice if it states a “compelling interest” and shows its approach is the “least restrictive means.” The court upheld a strong reading of RFRA protections in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case, and cited that ruling throughout the opinion today.

The unanimous ruling protected all types of religious exercise, not just those required by one’s faith. The prison argued it accommodated Holt’s religious exercise in other ways, like providing him a prayer rug and a religious diet. But the court said the question under RLUIPA was whether the government had burdened his religious exercise at all, “not whether the RLUIPA claimant is able to engage in other forms of religious exercise.”

“RLUIPA provides greater protection,” Alito wrote.

In a two-sentence concurring opinion, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor placed boundaries around their free exercise views, comparing this case to Hobby Lobby.

“Unlike the exemption this court approved in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., accommodating petitioner’s religious belief in this case would not detrimentally affect others who do not share petitioner’s belief,” they wrote.

Holt represented himself in lower courts, which ruled against him and then sent a handwritten petition to the Supreme Court. Douglas Laycock from the University of Virginia School of Law and lawyers from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty handled his case at the high court.

“Today’s decision should send a clear message to lower courts that strict scrutiny for religious freedom must be taken seriously—both in the prison context and elsewhere,” wrote Hannah Smith, senior counsel at the Becket Fund.