Docket nos. 13–6827 Argument Oral argument | Citations 574 U.S. ___ (more) End date 2015 | |
 | ||
Full case name Gregory Houston Holt, A/K/A Abdul Maalik Muhammad, Petitioner v. Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, et al., Respondents Prior history On writ on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; Holt v. Hobbs, 09 F. App’x 561 (CA08 2012) (per curiam) Majority Alito, joined unanimously Ruling court Supreme Court of the United States Similar Burwell v Hobby Lobby St, Heien v North Carolina, Elonis v United States, Alabama Legislative Black Ca, King v Burwell | ||
Holt v hobbs uva law prof douglas laycock on arguing the case
Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. ___ (2015), was an American legal case in which the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that an Arkansas prison policy which prohibited a Muslim prisoner from growing a short beard in accordance with his religious beliefs violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
Contents
Holt v hobbs protecting religious freedom in prison
Background
Gregory Holt (also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad) was a prisoner in the Arkansas Department of Corrections. Holt was also a devout Muslim who believed, based on hadith, that his faith obliged him to leave his beard entirely uncut. However, Arkansas policy prohibited inmates to grow any beards (except to a length of a quarter inch when medically required).
Holt requested an exemption from the no-beards policy through the prison grievance process. Based upon a case ordering California officials to allow Muslim prisoners to grow a half-inch beard, Holt requested permission to grow a half-inch beard only, as a "compromise". His request was rejected.
In lower courts
Holt then filed a motion in court to require Arkansas allow him to grow a half-inch beard, arguing that he deserved an exception under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. He argued pro se that he was entitled to an exemption because Arkansas's policy was not, as required under RLUIPA, the "least restrictive means" for Arkansas to further its interests.
The magistrate initially recommended the motion be denied, but the District Court temporarily granted his request and sent the matter back to the magistrate for a hearing. At the hearing, Holt testified that it was impossible to hide anything in his beard. Two prison officials testified in response that inmates could hide contraband in half-inch beards, that an escaped prisoner with a beard could change his appearance by shaving his beard, and that it would be difficult to consistently measure half-inch beards. The magistrate ultimately deferred to the judgment of the prison officials, relying on Eighth Circuit precedent, and recommended that Holt's motion be denied. The District Court adopted the magistrate's recommendations, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Holt then filed a pro se petition for a writ of certiorari and a request to proceed in forma pauperis. On March 3, 2014, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Supreme Court decision
The majority opinion written by Alito said that RLUIPA does not require a prison to grant religious exemptions simply because a prisoner asks or because other prisons do. However, Arkansas officials offered no evidence that a short beard presented security risks or could serve as a hiding place for contraband, as the officials argued. Arkansas had not overcome the high hurdles set by the law: that policymakers may not burden a person’s exercise of religion unless they can show a compelling governmental interest and that the policy was the least-restrictive means of achieving that goal. In a concurrence, Justice Ginsburg, contrasting the case with Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, said accommodating Holt’s request "would not detrimentally affect others who do not share petitioner’s belief." In a separate concurrence, Justice Sotomayor disagreed with the majority's application of RLUIPA, but did agree that Arkansas officials did not adequately respond to Holt's request to keep a beard.