March 3, 2014

Is it a violation of religious freedom to ban beards for prison inmates?

The Supreme Court just granted cert in Holt v. Hobbs...
... is a case filed directly by an inmate, in a hand-written petition.
The claim of entitlement to wear a beard for religious reasons, in spite of the general rule against beards in prison, is premised not on the constitutional right to free exercise (which authorizes government to impose neutral, generally applicable rules even though they burden religion), but on a statutory right to hold government to a strict scrutiny standard when it puts a substantial burden on religion. The statute in question is not the work of some backward state — as a layperson familiar with the recent to-do in Arizona might imagine — but the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, adopted by unanimous consent in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives and signed by President Bill Clinton in 2000.

ADDED: 2 weeks ago, we were talking about another case involving prison, hair, and RLUIPA, in which Supreme Court review is being sought. That case, from the 11th Circuit, is called Knight v. Thompson. We also talked about it last summer, and I showed you an old exam from my Religion and the Constitution class that depicted 5 different prisoners with different reasons — some religious — objecting to a rule requiring short hair.
It was very interesting to me to see how students would respond to the 5 different needs for long hair. If I remember correctly, most students found the Sikh's interest so strong that they began there. But then what happens? Do you include all? Just the Rastafarian-inspired man?  None of the others? And does thinking about that make you want to exclude the Sikh too? If your answer is yes, then you may be an 11th Circuit judge.

81 comments:

The Crack Emcee said...

No way. It's prison. Prisonors hide stuff in hair. Sorry.


Couple it with "I'm innocent" next time and I might have a different opinion,...

mccullough said...

Is this a men's or women's prison?

Fen said...

The statute in question is not the work of some backward state

Really stupid remark. Can't believe you swallowed the media's bullshit spin on it.

That said, yes. Its a violation of his religious freedom.

Bob Ellison said...

Yeah, that was a stupid sentence.

Bob Ellison said...

Fen, she might come back and say we didn't grasp her greater irony.

Scott said...

The statute in question is not the work of some backward state — as a layperson familiar with the recent to-do in Arizona might imagine...

So condescending.

Fen said...

No Bob, she'll just frontpage my remark with the false claim that I hate gays.

Just like last time.

Funny how she never apologized for that. I guess having a gay son trumps anything involving integrity, honesty, etc.

Scott said...

It's against my religion to be confined in a prison.

chickelit said...

AG Erich Holder has made the case for felons getting some Constitutional rights back after release. Perhaps it's time we revisit whether such rights should ever be suspended at all.

Fen said...

Cutter v. Wilkinson

"Should inmate requests for religious accommodations become excessive, impose unjustified burdens on other institutionalized persons, or jeopardize the effective functioning of an institution, the facility would be free to resist the imposition. In that event, adjudication in as-applied challenges would be in order. "

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Cutter_v_Wilkinson_544_US_709_125_S_Ct_2113_161_L_Ed_2d_1020_2005/1

rhhardin said...

I propose the rule of thumb.

RecChief said...

hmm...I've been told that SB1062, as well as the contraceptive mandate should be struck down and blindly adhered to because of the state has a compelling reason for forcing people to violate their religious beliefs, yet here, the leftists want us to believe that prisoners should be able to grow beards because of the prisoner's religious rights. My suspicion is that if Christianity required beards, then we would be having a different argument

RecChief said...

"AG Erich Holder has made the case for felons getting some Constitutional rights back after release. Perhaps it's time we revisit whether such rights should ever be suspended at all. " Some states already have methods for returning voting rights to ex-cons. It is a state by state decision.

Fen said...

The Crack Emcee: Prisonors hide stuff in hair.

I think that line of reasoning could be used to prove its an "unjustified burden on other institutionalized persons, or jeopardizes the effective functioning of an institution"

Hmmm.

DanTheMan said...

Aren't Sikhs required to carry a dagger? Is it a violation of their rights to disarm them?
Yes.
But that's what prison is... a place where you lose your most basic rights. Including your right to live as you wish.

SayAahh said...

How about pubic hair?

Roughcoat said...

Why do prison inmates have "religous freedom"? Haven't they forfeited their freedoms and attendant rights by being criminals who are serving time for their crimes?

Ann Althouse said...

"Aren't Sikhs required to carry a dagger? Is it a violation of their rights to disarm them?Yes."

The statutory right requires the govt to have a compelling interest to which the rule is narrowly tailored. No weapons is a rule that holds up easily to that test.

Short hair is a tougher call.

"But that's what prison is... a place where you lose your most basic rights. Including your right to live as you wish."

And federal law still trumps state law. The federal law made up those rights, so they are not lost. And prisoners in fact have many rights, even as they have lost the most basic right to live outside of government custody. In fact, when the govt assumes custody of a person, it takes on many obligations.

Anonymous said...

Not exactly the same, but a county sheriff wouldn't let a mother pump breast milk for her newborn child during the one week period she was in county jail. As a result she dried up and the child can't be breastfed now that's she is out of jail.

Sheriff Gossage refused to comment directly on the case, but rather stated that some privileges are forfeited when a person is locked up behind bars.

hombre said...

Althouse: "The statute in question is not the work of some backward state — as a layperson familiar with the recent to-do in Arizona might imagine ...."

Ah yes, Arizona, backward in the domain of moral relativism, but cutting edge on attempts to enforce immigration laws and respect for religious freedom in what purports to be a free society.

tim maguire said...

Yes it's a burden on the free exercise of religion. But so long as the warden can articulate a legitimate reason to want short hair (which I think they can easily do), then the rule should survive.

DanTheMan said...

The government's compelling interest is so obvious a blind man could see it: Prison safety and orderly discipline.

If you posit that the feds gave prisoners these rights, then I'd suggest the feds can, and should, take them away.

KCFleming said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
KCFleming said...

Didn't Althouse address an equally stupid question last week, concerning some high school dipshit who objected when the coach made him cut his hair, but girls didn't have to?

Similar reasoning applies here.

So why do judges waste our time and money on this bullshit?

I mean, hell, you can no longer practice your religion in real life anyway, given that Catholics must pay for birth control, so why differ when it comes to one's coiffure?

What a joke the law has become.

Fen said...

It's against my religion to be confined in a prison.

I'd really like to see someone cite a ruling that debunks this.

Yes, its obviously a frivolous claim. Now prove it....

KCFleming said...

And what will the wise judges do when their religion forbids them from recognizing US laws altogether (i.e., Shariah)?

traditionalguy said...

No.

Unknown said...

Fen:

Galatians 5:1 "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery."

Anonymous said...

you can no longer practice your religion in real life anyway, given that Catholics must pay for birth control

A lot of people, all across our country, went to church yesterday. Are you saying that they are just going through the motions because they aren't really practicing their religion?

If it is just a sham, like you claim, then perhaps we should revoke their tax exempt status and make these social clubs start paying their fair share.

Jason said...

The statute in question is not the work of some backward state

I agree with others upthread. A phenomenally stupid and careless remark.

The professor should really get out more. The Madison is rotting the brain.

harrogate said...

madisonfella with the thread winner.

chickelit said...

Harrogate with the "most presumptuous" award.

KCFleming said...

If you can only practice your religion in private, in church, then you cannot practice religion.

Since the parishioners are themselves already taxed, why tax them again?

You're just looking for another cow to milk, like all other statists.

KCFleming said...

"If it is just a sham, like you claim"...

What a neat trick by the government.
Forbid you from practicing your religion outside of the church walls (and maybe within them, e.g., gay marriage ceremonies), and then demand to revoke their tax exempt status because they aren't practicing religion.

I believe your lament sounds much like an orphan seeking court mercy after killing his parents.

Alex said...

Geez... American prisoners are such a spoiled bunch. At least ya'll don't get regular beatin' and torturin' like in 3rd world prisons. Be thankful!

Alex said...

madisonfella... babymomma shouldn't have done the meth if she didn't want any disruption of feeding schedule...

Mark said...

Alex, where do you get that she was doing meth?

I haven't read a peep about that.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The only person on this thread to make sense with a real and compelling reason to make inmates cut their hair and shave their beards is Crack.

Hair on the head and on the face provides places to hide things that can be contraband or can be harmful: razors, sharpened objects.

Bob Ellison said...

Dust Bunny Queen, why must the state prove a compelling reason? I ask not for the jurisprudential reason, but for the logical, moral one.

Anonymous said...

Forbid you from practicing your religion outside of the church walls

You really think that Obama has the power to forbid the Lord from hearing the prayers and hymns of his followers? All due respect, but the God you worship sounds a whole lot weaker than the one I know.

I'm also curious: When did you personally stop attending Mass; the day Obama was elected or the day he was sworn in?

babymomma shouldn't have done the meth

babymomma wasn't in for meth, she was in due to traffic issues and not having bail.

Again: She wasn't convicted, rather accused. Does that make any difference in your opinion or do you still think the child should be punished?

KCFleming said...

"You really think that Obama has the power to forbid the Lord from hearing the prayers and hymns of his followers?"

You are being deliberately obtuse, suggesting that you are arguing in bad faith, like most lefties.

I said that by forcing the Catholic Church to pay for contraception, Obama forbids the practice of religion.

But you responded with another example of private religious practice, rather than its public expression.

Unknown said...

Under what religion does a dedicated practioner commit crimes in the U.S. that result in a prison sentence?

southcentralpa said...

They granted cert to this, and passed on Woollard v Gallagher? Has someone tested the water in their building??

Anonymous said...

It's against my religion to be confined in a prison.
And central to my religion to kill infidels.

The Godfather said...

Come on, guys. The issue is pretty straight forward. Are the prison authorities being unreasonable in preventing the Muslim from growing a beard? It's the same statute that lead a prominent jurist just the other day to rule that the federal government is not unreasonable in requiring a Catholic college to sign a form that directs its insurance administrator to provide birth control coverage.

My own view is that it ought to be a sufficient justification for the no beard rule that we want the prisoners to be reminded every day that they are prisoners. That was the justification for cutting off almost all our hair when we were in basic training, and we had committed no crime.

Anonymous said...

You are being deliberately obtuse, suggesting that you are arguing in bad faith, like most lefties.

I ain't a "leftie" sweetheart. And you are fear mongering and lying. Or perhaps insane and deluded. Or maybe just confused and misguided.

You flat out said that Catholics can no longer practice their religion. When given an example that suggested otherwise, you moved the goal posts a couple times until you decided to start with the name calling and making personal attacks while refusing to actually answer the actual question asked of you: Are you saying that Catholics aren't really practicing their religion, but rather just going through the motions?

KCFleming said...

You can't read, or won't?

Question answered, repeatedly.

Go away.

KCFleming said...

Oh, but first declare victory.

Anonymous said...

Question answered, repeatedly

Not quite. You did say that Catholics are no longer practicing their religion but you haven't addressed the "are they just going through the motions?" part of the question.

If you believe they aren't actually worshiping God anymore, what do you think they are doing with their time and energy?

glenn said...

We could adopt the Chinese solution to these prison inmate problems.

Anonymous said...

Oh, but first declare victory

Declare victory?

Oh. I get it now. You are playing a game, with points to be scored and goals to be won. Your responses make a lot more sense in that context; you're not trying to have a discussion nor a conversation - you're simply focused on "winning" whatever game it is you're playing.

Sorry for assuming you were behaving in good faith, and thanks for pointing out you're instead focused on being "victorious" (whatever that may mean) in the thread.

KCFleming said...

Just like I figured you would be.
Your schtick ain't original, son.
Shit, I could write your posts for you.

harrogate said...

Pogo wrote this:

"I said that by forcing the Catholic Church to pay for contraception, Obama forbids the practice of religion."

Then he wrote this:

"But you responded with another example of private religious practice"

So already , you see the infinite regress of hyperbole and bullshit into which he is launched.

His calvary clause: "rather than its public expression." Heh.

KCFleming said...

Geez, that's devastating commentary, harrogate.
Don't know how I'll make it to tomorrow.

harrogate said...

Pogo, seriously. You don't think it's over the top to assert that Obama has forbidden the practice of religion in the United States?

Bob Ellison said...

Way off-topic: Jerry Brown will run for POTUS in 2016. He looks really good at 75.

Are we deep enough in the thread that this ridiculous comment stays put?

KCFleming said...

He has forbidden Catholics from practicing their religion, yes.

They cannot now practice being against abortion and contraception in day to day life, just in Church and in their thoughts.

But you must have some other definition of 'practicing religion'.

harrogate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
harrogate said...

How about tax dollars? I suppose if it was all the "pulic option," and contraceptives were covered, you would have to argue the same thing, that Catholics were forbidden to practice their religion?

I wonder, how far is your proclamation from claiming it is necessary that we spiritually align with how all our tax dollars are spent, for our religions to remain practiceable? How can I practice my religion if my tax dollars pay for that which my religion condemns?

chickelit said...

madisonfella = another name for an old troll archetype found on Althouse. They usually appear when someone else disappears like a baton passing in a relay race. It's odd, but they always know years and years of Althouse history too and when asked say that they've just been lurking forever.

Has anyone seen Inga lately? :)

Fen said...

Obama makes campaign ads illegal.
We complain that forbids freedom of expression.
Harrogate insists that can't be true, since we are talking about it.

Teh Stupid is strong with this one...

harrogate said...

Obama made campaign ads illegal?

KCFleming said...

"How about tax dollars?"

I oppose tax dollars spent on abortions, but that's nowhere near the degree of intrusion that regulatory demands requiring a church pay for those same 'services' directly by itself.

It is the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. "...we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which you have set up."

I may have to live as a stranger in a strange land, and abide its ways, but I will not worship your gods.

Obama is demanding the Catholics worship his gods.

Bob Ellison said...

harrogate said "Obama made campaign ads illegal?"

No, he hasn't succeeded there yet. He merely spoke in the SOTU against free association and free speech when he criticized the SCOTUS. He merely talks about punching back twice as hard. He only thinks companies should not be allowed to talk; unions should be allowed to talk; unions should be allowed to force membership and payment of dues; public unions should force dues from workers to re-elect jerks like Obama. Even Franklin Delano Roosevelt opposed that, forcefully.

So no, Obama has not yet succeeded.

Anonymous said...

I am sincerely curious: is this whole "Catholics are just going through the motions and not actually practicing their religion anymore" claim an actual GOP talking point or just the opinion of one individual? Because it is going to be kind of funny seeing the TV & radio ads start making THAT claim...lol

And how many sock-puppets does Pogo/Chickenlittle have anyways?

Anonymous said...

Oh wait! There won't be ANY ads that say that, because Obama also banned political advertising, right? Won't be anything on the air or in print advocating for political issues this election season, eh?

LOL

Sad part is that there is plenty wrong with our President without having to make shit up like "He banned Catholics." Given the way he is planting his flag on this one I an't help but wonder if Pogo is really a moby.

KCFleming said...

Been posting here since 2004, and I've seen concern trolling like yours many times.

Mark said...

Pogo, being a long term troll does not mean your poor logic stands.

southcentralpa said...

I've always wondered how the dental plan is at the Axelrod organization is (at least some of these trolls must be professional).

Anonymous said...

"you must have some other definition of 'practicing religion'

From wiki:
"The practice of a religion may also include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration of a deity, gods or goddesses, sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trance, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service or other aspects of human culture."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

And that is what is forbidden for Catholics, eh?

Just curious, what exactly will be the penalties for the Catholics who take part in the upcoming Ash Wednesday ceremonies?

PianoLessons said...

The Fort Hood shooter was forcibly shaved (IMHO finally!) byt the Army in September 2013.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/03/nidal-hasan-fort-hood-beard-shaved/2760923/

He was a US Army employee. He killed 13 people and wounded 30 as he shouted "Allah Akbar" in his Muslim uniform (which was allowed on the base in 2009 - and probably still is?).

Military jurors, baby.

He grew the beard to grow exception to the Army rules.

He milked it for all it was worth.

This monster was embedded in our US Military as he snapped in an "Allah Akbar" moment and killed 13 personnel and wounded 30 others.

Our US prisons recruit Muslims non-stop as they provide for five "prayer" breaks a day (LOL).

At some point - the intentional posturing and exceptions for religion must end - especially with such a clear cut case as in the Fort Hood Shooter.


PianoLessons said...

But good legal research on the Case of the Fort Hood Shooter's Beard is so interesting.....a trail of exceptions - in the military courts no less.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fort-hood-shooting-suspect-nidal-hasan-allowed-to-keep-beard/


KCFleming said...

Hard to beat Wiki for a definition, man. Plus, Mark calls me out for 'poor logic', though fails to delineate proof.

These are some high quality commenters, I tell ya.

Anonymous said...

Hard to beat Wiki for a definition, man

Better than any link you provided, man.

If it is true that Catholics are forbidden from practicing their religion outside of the church walls then what kind of penalties will people with ashes on their foreheads be facing if they appear in public this Wednesday?

kentuckyliz said...

We must defend the rights of Amish prisoners.

KCFleming said...

Try harder, madisonfella.
Soon you'll reach critical troll mass.

Anonymous said...

Poultryman,
I am not Madisonfella.

Bob Ellison said...

A slightly clever person could pretty easily hide tracks in commenting here.

Fen said...

Just curious, what exactly will be the penalties for the Catholics who take part in the upcoming Ash Wednesday ceremonies?

I'm voting that this is Inga. Only she could be this dumb.

Maybe we should use smaller words: if one of your relgious freedoms is being violated but the others are not, your religious freedom is still being violated.

Anonymous said...

if one of your relgious freedoms is being violated but the others are not, your religious freedom is still being violated.

Sure does and never said otherwise. But the claim that was made is that if one of your religious freedoms is being violated that means it is forbidden to practice your religion.

Do you agree with Pogo that Obama forbids Catholics from practicing their religion? Since you mentioned a preference for small words, a simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Annie said...

fella, yes.
By forcing you to violate one of the most important core principles of your religion, you are being denied the full practice of your religion.